BINNY LTD Vs. M P APPADURAI SAMUEL DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the award dated December 10, 1984 passed in I. D. No. 329 of 1982 by the second respondent.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated leading to this writ petition are the following: The respondent No. 1 herein entered the services of the petitioner as Junior Assistant on December 31, 1958. He did not suffer any punishment. His services were satisfactory, on the false allegation that the first respondent's services were not satisfactory the Management sent a letter dated April 1, 1981 that the work of the respondent No. l would be watched for a period of three months, and in the event no improvement in the work is found his services would be terminated. However, the first respondent was allowed to continue in service beyond the period of three months, but he received an order of termination dated February 22, 1982 in which it was stated that his services were not satisfactory and it was not possible to the management to keep him in employment. Clause (8) of the agreement dated December 16, 1969 was misread by the petitioner Management to suit its convenience and using the said clause of the agreement the services of the first respondent was terminated in an unjust and illegal manner, and in contravention of various provisions of the standing order and in violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act)

(3.) UNDER the circumstances the respondent No. 1 raised a dispute which was referred by the State Government under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Act for adjudication. The petitioner filed counter contending that the respondent No. 1 was employed in a managerial or administrative and/or Supervisory capacity throughout his employment in the Mills and at the time of his termination of services he was drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1,405/- his duties were allocation of required labour for the work in the department, supervise the work of above 30 workmen working under him in order to ensure that the production and quality were achieved; it was also part of his duty that proper advice was given in respect of breakdown of machinery and even he was authorised to grant leave to the workmen working under him. In short, according to the management, the first respondent was not a workman and as such the reference was not tenable and that the termination order was perfectly legal and valid.