BOMBAY INDRA BHAVAN MYSORE Vs. RAMACHANDRA SASTRI S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the award dated 7 June 1962, passed by the labour court, Bangalore, in Reference No. 9 of 1962 made by the State Government on 15 February 1962.

(2.) The petition has been filed by one Badri Prasad as partner of Bombay Indra Bhavan, a restaurant carrying on business in Mysore. Respondent 1, who is the contesting party, had been employed as a cook for preparing cakes. On account of his frequent absenteeism without previous permission, his services had been twice terminated - once on 26 July 1961 and again, on 9 September 1961 - but he had been taken back into service on account of a written undertaking given by him once before the conciliation officer to the effect that he would not absent himself from duty without prior permission and on the next occasion on oral assurance before the same officer. In spite of these assurances, respondent 1 (hereinafter called the respondent) absented himself from the afternoon of 30 October 1961, without obtaining prior leave. The petitioner called for the explanation of the respondent and terminated his service with an offer of one month's wages in lieu of notice as his explanation was found to be unacceptable. The respondent raised an industrial dispute through the Mysore City Hotel Workers' Association (respondent 2), and the State Government made the aforesaid reference to the labour court, Bangalore.

(3.) It was contended before the labour court that the termination of the service of the respondent was not preceded by any enquiry and that the entire proceedings were illegal as being contrary to the principles of natural justice. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the order of termination of the services of the respondent had been passed under S. 41 of the Mysore Shops and Establishments Act, 1948, that the order had become final on account of the respondent's failure to challenge the same in appeal and that the reference made by the Government under S. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was bad in law. The petitioner sought to justify his order on merits by producing documents to relating to prior absence and the undertaking given by the respondent. The labour court was of the opinion that the order of termination of service violated the principal of natural justice as the management of the petitioner establishment had not held a proper domestic enquiry for reaching the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of absenting himself from duty without permission from the afternoon of 3 October 1961. As a result of this finding, the Court passed an award directing the management of the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in his former post and pay him full wages from the date of termination of his service to the date of his reinstatement.