P R RAJAGOPALAN Vs. SOUTHERN STRUCTURAL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) W. P. No. 10116 of 1983 is directed against the order of t. S. E. case No. 44 of 1980 by the second respondent therein viz. the Assistant commissioner of Labour II, Madras, under which order he has held that no appeal is maintainable under Sec. 41 (l) of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act against the order of termination of service passed by the management of southern Structurals Ltd. the first respondent therein W. P. No. 17376 of 1991 is directed against the order of termination passed by the said respondent as well as to quash the service rules so far as clause 6 (4) thereof is concerned.

(2.) RELEVANT facts as set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petitions are as follows: Petitioner was employed as a stores Officer in the service of the respondent-Southern Structurals Ltd. , when according to him his service was unlawfully terminated by order dated 1. 9. 1980. He had joined the service of the respondent in July, 1962 as cashier-cum-accounts Assistant and risen to the status of the Stores Officer by and by in July, 1974. In March, 1975 he was transferred to Structural Engineers and Technicians Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. In July, 1977 he was recalled to the stores at Pattabiram. In September. 1979 he was transferred to the Data Collection and Statistics section of the Industrial Engineering Department, where he remained for a brief period of 13 days only after which he was recalled to the Accounts Department. According to the petitioner he discovered during 1975 that the personal assistant to the then Managing Director of the company had in collusion with a typist at the Head office been misappropriating the share capital of members. This led to the disciplinary action against some of the guilty persons. The Managing Director did not take this kindly and subjected the petitioner to a space of transfers, following by a charge memo in march, 1978, alleging that the petitioner was responsible for the missing of two plates from the stores. On petitioner's explanation this charge was not followed up. In December, 1979 a further memo emanated as if one forged round was missing from the stores. The said charge was also not followed up on petitioner's explanation about the round having been consumed. In May, 1980 another charge memo came up that colour coding of stock had not been carried out by the petitioner. The petitioner answered this charge also. However, the petitioner was transferred to Ramagundam project in Andhra Pradesh on 22. 8. 1980 and asked to join duty on or before 27. 8. 1980. The petitioner represented to the General Manager and sought time to report for duty and also represented on 28. 8. 1980 requesting for a month's time as his wife had undergone a major surgery from which she was yet to recover and to meet her medical expenses he was required to dispose of certain properties with respect to which certain execution proceedings was pending in court. The petitioner was served with another office memo to join at Ramagundam before 10. 9. 1980. This order the petitioner received on 4. 9. 1980. However, before the petitioner could proceed he received another memo dated 1. 9. 1980 purported to be one month's notice of termination of service on the ground that he had disobeyed the transfer order dated 22. 8. 1980. The petitioner represented against the said termination. This termination order was withdrawn on 8. 9. 1980. The petitioner was also informed that the second transfer order also stood cancelled.

(3.) SINCE the first respondent company wanted to reorganise and restructure its accounts department by efficient persons and to weed out the inefficient ones and since no other suitable work was available for the petitioner the first respondent company terminated the services of the petitioner by giving one month's notice vide its letter dated 1st september, 1980.