RANJIT SINGH TOMAR Vs. HINDUSTAN EXPORT AND IMPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a dismissed employee. He was dismissed by the employer, the respondent company, for misconduct. He was a peon getting Rs. 105 per month besides Rs. 5.50 per month as cycle allowance. He was in the employ of the company from 1958 to 23-2-1968 when he was summarily dismissed. He wilfully refused to obey the orders of the employer. He persistently defied the lawful orders of his superiors. He refused to go to the bank for encashing a cheque. He refused to sign the employment register. He was asked to wind the clock which he refused. So the employer dismissed him from service.

(2.) The petitioner raised an industrial dispute. The Governent referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The question referred was whether the termination of petitioner's services was unjustified and illegal. Before the Labour Court it was not disputed that the employer did not hold any enquiry. But the employer produced evidence before the court. The court found the employee guilty of misconduct. It came to the conclusion that he was disobedient. He was insolent. He was defiant. He wilfully refused to carry out the orders of the employer. The court on the evidence produced by the employer before it for the first time held that the dismissal was justified. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the award of the Labour Court dated 6-1-1971.

(3.) On this petition two questions were raised. Firstly it was said that the employee was entitled to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of the order of the Labour Court, namely, from 23-2-1968 to 6-1-1971. This claim is made on the ground that the employer dismissed the employee without holding any enquiry into the charges. As the enquiry was held before the Labour Court it is said that the dismissal order would take effect from 6-1-71 when the dismissal was held to be justified by the court. For this submission counsel for the employee place reliance on Hotel Imperial v. Hotel Workers' Union. AIR 1959 S.C. 1342, and in particular on the following observation of Wanchoo J. at page 1347 :