GLAXO LABORATORIES INDIA LIMITED Vs. GLAXO STAFF ASSOCIATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GLAXO Laboratories is a public limited company having its factory at Mazurgarhi in the district of Aligarh. It manufactures food products including dried milk for children. The company has milk centres in various parts of Aligarh and adjoining districts of Aligarh in rural areas for collecting milk. Each milk centre is under a centre incharge employed by the company. D. K. Jain, respondent No. 3 to the petition, was centre incharge at the Milk-Collecting Centre, Ratanpur. Certain charges were framed against D. K. Jain by the Factory Manager and a domestic enquiry was held. Dr. I. S. Verma, Asstt. Factory Manager, passed an order of dismissal against respondent No. 3 on 27th June, 1969. On a dispute raised by the Glaxo Staff Association, respondent No. 1, which is the union of the workmen employed by the petitioner-company, the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court, Agra. The dispute referred was in the following terms: Whether the termination of service of Sri D. K. Jain, son of Pyare Lal Jain on 30th June, 1969 was legally justified ? If not to what relief or compensation was the workman entitled. The Labour Court held that Dr. T. S. Verma had no authority to dismiss D. K. Jain, respondent No. 3 Hence the order of dismissal was void. On these findings the Labour Court, by its award dated 3rd July, 1972, directed that respondent No. 3 be reinstated and the past wages be paid to him. The State Government published the award in the Gazette dated 15th July, 1972. The petitioner-company thereupon filed the present petition challenging the validity of the said award.

(2.) SHRI Shanti Bhushan, learned Counsel for the petitioner-company, contended that the Labour Court committed a manifest error of law in holding that Dr. I. S. Verma had no authority to dismiss respondent No. 3. Dr. I. S. Verma according to the learned Counsel, was Assistant Factory Manager and on 27th June, 1969, when he passed the order of dismissal he was acting as Factory Manager since Dr. B. S. Saraswat, Factory Manager was out of station. The Factory Manager was invested with the power to take disciplinary action against the workmen and to pass orders of dismissal. It was further that Dr. I. S. Verma was fully empowered to pass dismissal order under Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946, The Labour Court framed an issue whether Dr. I. S. Verma had authority to dismiss the concerned workman. Clause 23 of the Standing Orders confers power on the Manager of the Factory to dismiss a workman. Clause 2 (c) of the Standing Orders defines ''manager" which means the person for the time being managing the establishment and for the purposes of the Standing Orders includes the Factory Manager, Administrative Officer and such other officers as may be authorised by the employers, provided such authorisation is notified to the workman by displaying it on the notice board of the establishment. The petitioner's case before the Labour Court was that since I. S. Verma was the Assistant Factory Manager, he had authority to dismiss the workman. The Standing Orders no doubt regulate the coalitions of service of the workmen employed by the petitioner-company, but the petitioner itself conceded before the Labour Court that the Standing Orders regulated the service conditions of the workmen employed in the factory and the workmen who were employed at the milk centre outside the factory premises were not governed by the Standing Orders. The Labour Court relied upon the admission of the employers contained in Ex. 44d, dated 15th October, 1970, in holding that the Standing Orders did not apply to a workman employed at the milk centre Therefore, Dr. I. S. Verma could not derive any authority under the Standing Orders to pass the order of dismissal against respondent No. 3. There is thus no substance in the petitioner's contention that since Dr. Verma was managing the petitioner's establishment he had an implied authority to do all acts necessary to manage the establishment. Before the Labour Court the petitioner-company relied upon the Standing Orders but when the workmen produced evidence to show that the employers themselves on a previous occasion had taken the stand that the Standing Orders did not apply to the employees working at the milk centre outside the factory premises, the employers have taken a new case before this Court that there was implied authority in Dr. Verma. No case of implied authority was pleaded before the Labour Court and the workmen were not afforded any opportunity to meet this case. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be allowed to raise this question for the first time in the present proceedings.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that even if the Standing Orders were not applicable to the staff working at the milk centre, the Standing Orders indicate that the employers had delegated their authority to the Factory Manager and Assistant Manager for taking disciplinary action including dismissal of a workman. As already noted, since the Standing Orders did not apply, Clause 23 read with Clause 2 (c) of the Standing Orders cannot be pressed into service by the petitioner to show that the employers had actually delegated their power of dismissal to Dr. I. S. Verma. In fact no order issued by the employers delegating their power of dismissal of workman employed at the milk centres was ever issued in favour of Dr. I. S. Verma. Nor any such order was placed before the Labour Court. The Standing Orders no doubt contain delegation of power to the Factory Manager for taking disciplinary action against the workmen employed in the factory establishment but that delegation cannot be utilised as a general delegation of power for other purposes. The petitioners contention, therefore, must be rejected.