PREMIER TYRES LTD Vs. WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by an order,dated 3rd August 1965 terminated the services of one of its employees,one Sri A.Balakishna Pillai,who was then working as a typist -clerk.The order of termination has not been produced in this case.But I have got a copy of that order from the Government Pleader;and it reads:"

(2.) TWO contentions have been raised by counsel for the petitioner against the direction for payment of wages to the employee till the date of the award of the Labour Court.One is that the termination of the service of the employee,though it was on account of his persistent mis­conduct,was not done as a punishment,but it was in exercise of the petitioner's right to terminate the services of its employees under the Standing Order for any sufficient reason.The other contention is that even assuming that the termination amounted to a punishment,the employee was not entitled to any wages from the date of the termina­tion till the date of the decision of the Labour Court,on the ground that the termination was not preceded by a discipli­nary enquiry,when as a matter of fact it found that the termination was justified.

(3.) IN support of his contention,counsel for the petitioner relies first on the decision of Raman Nayar,J.as he then was,in Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Ltd. v. Its Workmen and others 1969(1)L.L.J.483.In that case,the workman concerned was a driver,whose service was terminated by his employer on the ground that he was incompetent to do his job for the several reasons mentioned in the order of dis­charge without making any enquiry against him in that respect.It was contended that such a termination of service was a punishment,which could be done only after an enquiry into the employee's conduct,and that a dis­charge simpliciter amounted to victimisation and unfair labour practice.In respect of the above contention,which found acceptance by the Industrial Tribunal,the learned Judge stated:"