LAWS(KAR)-1985-12-12

INDIAN EXPRESS MADURAI LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICE

Decided On December 11, 1985
INDIAN EXPRESS MADURAI LTD. Appellant
V/S
PRESIDING OFFICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Management has called into question the correctness of the order made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore rejecting its application under the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the Act' for short). That application was filed by it seeking approval of the action taken against the 2nd respondent-Sub-editor for the alleged misconduct committed by him, as an industrial dispute was pending at the relevant time before the Tribunal between the petitioner and its workman in which the 2nd respondent was a concerned workman.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the 2nd respondent was a Working Journalist governed by the Working Journalists Act and he was appointed by the petitioner in the year 1965 as a Sub-editor with effect from 1-5-1965. The terms and conditions of appointment are found in the appointment order which is produced as Annexure-K in the Writ Petition and was marked as an Exhibit before the Industrial Tribunal. The relevant terms of the appointment order for the purpose of this case are : "Clause 4 - You should abide by the rules and regulations of the Company now in force and issued from time to time and the Standing Orders. xx xx xx xx Clause 6 - You shall not engage yourself in any outside work over and above your legitimate work in the company on duty days on holidays and when you are on leave." This order of appointment was followed by an Office Note dated 11-4-1979 produced as Annexure-M in the Writ Petition. That office note reads as under : "All Sub-editors, reporters, photographers and all categories of working journalists are hereby informed that, as per the directions of the editor-in-chief, they are prohibited from writing/contributing to any other journal/periodical/newspaper/ magazines which is published either from India or abroad, without getting the prior permission in writing of the Editor-in-chief. Any violation or contravention of this instruction would mean that the matter would have to be referred to the management for suitable, appropriate action." It could be seen from the order of appointment and the office note, that the 2nd respondent was prescribed from writing/contributing to any other journal/periodical/news-papers etc. But whether the violation of that note would amount to misconduct which would warrant his dismissal from the service of the petitioner is not clear either from the appointment order or from the office note. This aspect is of considerable significance for considering the case of the petitioner that the alleged misconduct had been proved. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Narayanaswamy, the appointment order read with office note admits of no doubt that respondent-2 ought to have known that he was committing a misconduct meriting his dismissal from service when he contributed certain articles whilst in the employment of the petitioner to magazines like Caravaa and Onlooker and other journals. Respondent-2 did contribute certain articles to these magazines. But his plea in the light of the office note was that he had taken prior permission in writing of the Editor-in-chief.

(3.) With these indisputable facts in the background, the actual allegation of misconduct against respondent-2 and the enquiry in regard to the said misconduct should be considered.