EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management of Express Newspapers, Ltd. , have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Madras (respondent 1), dated 24 May 1963, setting aside the order of termination of the services of M. Neelakantan (respondent 2) passed by the management on 7 December 1962.

(2.) THE facts leading to this petition lie In a narrow compass. In 1959, there was a strike in the Madras office of the newspaper. Thereupon, the management declared a closure of their business, and also paid the staff their dues up to that date. Respondent 2 who was an employee of the newspaper office was one among them. Sometime thereafter, respondent 2 volunteered his Services and the management then entertained him as a temporary employee to assist the skeleton staff-which was then functioning. According to the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, respondent 2 was continued in various departments of the office to assist the staff in collecting the out standings due to the newspaper office and that when the management had to effect a reorganization even in respect of the skeleton staff, they had to retrench respondent 2 from Service as he happened to be the junior most among the temporary staff. Of course, it is In the records that the management were not satisfied with the work and conduct of respondent 2. On termination, respondent 2 was paid one month's salary in lieu of notice, besides the retrenchment compensation he was entitled to under the law. Thereupon, respondent 2 filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation under Section 41 (2) of the Madras Shops and Establishments Act, The Commissioner set aside the order of termination of respondent 2 by the petitioner, as he was of the view that the services of respondent 2 were not terminated for a reasonable cause. While setting aside the order of termination, the Commissioner observed that the various allegations of misconduct made against respondent 2 would show that the actual reason behind the termination was certain alleged misconduct and not that he was being found surplus to the requirement. It is this order of the Commissioner that Is attacked by the management in this writ petition.

(3.) THE only Question for consideration in this writ petition, therefore, is whether the termination of the services of respondent 2 was termination simpliciter or dismissal under cloak of discharge simpliciter.