BLUE STAR LIMITED Vs. N R SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, an employer, challenges an Award of the Labour Court, Delhi, in a dispute with regard to the validity of the termination of the services of its workman, respondent No. 1, by which the Labour Court has directed the reinstatement of the workman with full back wages and all benefits including continuity of service subject to certain deductions and adjustments. The petition was filed in the following circumstances.

(2.) Respondent No. 1, the workman concerned, was appointed by the petitioner a joint stock company dealing in. air-conditioning and refrigeration, as a mechanic in May 1954 initially on aprobation for 6 months on asalary of Rs. 140.00 per month, inter alia on the condition that after confirmation the "appointment can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof, by one calendar month's notice on either side". in 1962 the staff of the petitioner formed a trade union of which the workman was an office bearer. In 1964 the workman was awarded a medal for his efficient work and earned special increments and was eventually promoted in 1965 as a supervisor. On the material date the total emoluments of the workman were of the order of Rs. 750.00 per month. In April 1967, when the workman was in charge of the air-conditioning plant of the Punjab National Bank, Parliament Street, for which the petitioner had a maintenance contract, the management of the Bank made a complaint by its letter of April 12, 1967 (M-70/Annexure C-6) to the effect that the workman had been guilty of misbehaviour, was non-cooperative and arrogant. This was followed by a reminder (M-69/Annexure C-5). As no steps had apparently been taken by the petitioner in spite of an alleged assurance the management of the Bank sought the transfer of the workman from their establishment by their letter of May 15, 1967 (M-72/Annexure C-8) in which the allegations that the workman was "non-cooperative and arrogant" were reiterated. There was yet another protest by the Bank by its letter of June 7, 1967 (M-71/Annexure C-7). By its letter of March 27 1968 (M38/Annexure C), the management of the Bank reiterated the allegations, complained of further instances of rude and threatening behaviour of the workman and alleged that the workman has offered to undertake the maintenance of the plant for a lesser amount than had been agreed to by the petitioner. An allegation was made that the workman was running some sort of a parallel undertaking and attributed the rather frequent reports of break-down by him to such business and therefore, insisted on the workman being replaced. According to the petitioner, the workman was verbally warned and a copy of this latter bears endorsement to that effect. The management of the Bank, however still persisted in demanding action against the workman by their letters of July 16, 1968 (M-43/Annexure C-4), of August 13, 1968 (M-42/Annexure C-3). The last communication from the Bank in this connection is its letter of September 27, 1968 (M-44/ Annexure C-2), a copy of which was sent to the Bombay office of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the Managing Director of the petitioner decided on October 3, 1968 that since the previous warnings to the workman had been of no avail and since they could not afford to ignore the complaints from an important customer like the Bank it was not possible to retain the workman any longer in service. An endorsement to this effect is claimed to have been made by the Managing Director (M-79) on the foot of the Bank's letter of September 27, 1968. This is how the endorsement purports to run :

(3.) At the trial of the reference on the merits the termination of the services of the workmen was sought to be justified on behalf of the management on the ground that it was an order of discharge simpliciter bona fide made by the management in accordance with the terms of the contract of service and the Rules of service because the workman was holding a position of confidence and had betrayed the confidence reposed in him. Either because the order of termination was made on the assumption that the workman was outside the purview of the Industrial Disputes Act or because it purported to be a case of discharge simpliciter carrying no stigma, no domestic enquiry was held by the management. The management, therefore, in the alternative led some evidence in support of the fact of rudeness, non-cooperative attitude and infidelity. The validity of the termination was assailed on of the workman on the ground that, assuming that it was a case of discharge simpliciter, it was nevertheless invalid, because neither the workman was given one month's notice nor paid in lieu thereof. The order of termination was, however, characterised as being an act of victimisation of the workman on account of his trade union activities which were not relished by the management. The allegations of misconduct were denied and the evidence produced on behalf of the management in support of it was characterised as being the result of fabrication. The order of termination was attributed to the dislike by the management of the militant attitude taken by the workman in leading the demand for enhanced bonus.