VARMA A R Vs. METTUR INDUSTRIES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from the order of Balakrishna Ayyar, J. in W.P. No. 110 of 1958, quashing the award dated 30 December, 1957, of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, in I.D. No. 60 of 1957, by which the labour court had directed the respondent 1 management to reinstate the appellant 1 before us in service.

(2.) THE appellant 1, who was an employee of the respondent 1 company as a weaving production clerk and who had put in a service of about eleven years, was dismissed by the respondent 1 on 28 November, 1958 on the ground that he was found sleeping on three occasions while on duty on the night of 22 November, 1956. As a that time as industrial dispute was pending adjudication by the industrial tribunal, now known as the labour court, at Coimbatore, the respondent 1 applied to that tribunal, under S.33(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for approval of the order of dismissal. At the same time, the appellant 1 also filled a complaint under S.33A of the Act questioning the order of dismissal. THE labour court, which heard the two petitions together, by its award dated 13 March, 1957, held that the order of dismissal was unjustified and, directing the reinstatement of the appellant 1 with full back-wages and continuity of service, dismissed the respondent 1's application filed under S.33(2) of the Act. THE award was published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 10 April, 1957, and had to be implemented by 9 May, 1957. It was, however, not implemented until 13 July, 1957. In the meantime the respondent 1 sought the special leave of the Supreme Court to appeal against the award but leave was refused on 24 May, 1957. On 13 July, 1957, the respondent 1 reinstated the appellant 1 in service with effect from the forenoon. On the same day it terminated the appellant 1's service with effect from the afternoon, the order of termination purporting to be under the standing order 18(a). We will presently refer to this order of termination in more detail. THE order of termination of the appellant 1's services became the subject-matter of an industrial dispute sponsored and supported by the appellant 2, the union, which was eventually, on 24 September, 1957, referred under S.10(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication by the Labour Court, Coimbatore.At this stage, it will be convenient to refer to some more facts which furnished a background for, and had a bearing upon, the order of termination dated 28 November, 1956. THE appellant 1, sometime before 26 March, 1955, had complained to the Salem District Textile Employee's Union that one Sadler, an officer in the employ of the respondent 1, had abused him and insulted him when on duty. THE secretary of that union took up that matter and addressed the manager of the respondent 1 by a letter dated 23 June, 1955, of which copies were sent by him to the British High Commissioner, the British Trade High Commissioner, New Delhi, the Labour Minister, Union Government, New Delhi, the Chief Minister, the Labour Minister, Madras, and others. This letter recounted the incident in which Sadler was alleged to have abused and insulted the appellant 1 and how he also used abusive words against him in December 1954. THE letter complained that such action and behaviour on the part of the European staff towards an Indian staff could not in the least be tolerated as it affected the self-respect of a man, leave alone his position, status etc., and demanded, at the end, an apology in writing from the management with an assurance that there would be no recurrence of such an unhappy incident. What transpired thereafter is not clear from the materials on record. But on 28 November, 1956, just before the enquiry by the respondent 1 against the appellant 1 on a charge of sleeping while on duty on the night of 22 November, 1956, commenced, the appellant 1 had handed to the enquiry officer his letter dated 28 November, 1956, which had reference to the question involving Sadler and the appellant 1. In that letter, the appellant 1 stated that he was personally not for making much of that incident and that but for the instigation of another European employee by name Nigli, neither be nor the secretary of the union would have developed the incident to such a magnitude as it had been, and addressed the letter dated 26 March, 1955. THE appellant 1 in that letter dated 28 November, 1956 expressed regret for having been a tool at the hands of Nigli and complained against Sadler, not knowing that Nigli had his own axes to grind against Sadler. THE respondent 1 took no action against he appellant 1 on his letter dated 28 November, 1956, until it was passed into service on 13 July, 1957. It may be remembered that on that day the appellant 1 was reinstated in service in the morning, and his services were terminated with effect from the afternoon by another order of the same date. THE order terminating the services of the appellant 1 was as follows :

(3.) IN view of this and your past conduct and in view of the strained relations between you and the company, the management have lost confidence in you and consider that you are not a fit person to continue in the employment of the mills. Your service of employment of employment is therefore terminated under standing order 18(a) as and from this afternoon. You are also informed that the management is prepared to pay you compensation equivalent to S.25F of the INdustrial Disputes Act, 1947." *