NATIONAL MACHINERY MANUFACTURERS LTD Vs. P D VYAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the order of Mr. Justice Mody dismissing the Petitioner's Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE short facts are that respondent No. 2 was employed as a watchman with the Petitioner Company. On 5th December 1959 he was charge-sheeted for an alleged misconduct, i. e. theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with company's business or properly. The enquiry was proceeded with but thereafter on 2nd of January 1960 the charge sheet was cancelled and on 3rd January 1960 his services were terminated under Standing Order 21 (1) on the ground of loss of confidence with effect from that date. At this time, a dispute was pending before the Industrial Tribunal Bombay, between the workmen on the one hand and the Company on the other. Respondent No. 2 feeling himself aggrieved by this order, made a complaint to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, alleging that his services were terminated in breach of Section 33 (2) (b ). In that complaint he prayed that the Petitioner should be directed to reinstate him with all back wages and further prayed that suitable compensation should be awarded to him. The company contested the application contending that the termination of the services of the 2nd Respondent did not amount to illegal dismissal and was not wrong, unfair and unjust, It further contended that it was a case of discharge simpliciter and, therefore, the provisions of Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act were not attracted. It therefore, contended that the complaint under Section 33a was not entertainable and therefore the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide it.

(3.) THE Industrial Tribunal repelled the contention of the Company that since the action of the company purported to be a discharge simpliciter, the case did not fall within Section 33 (2) (b) of the Act. It held that the action of the company was in connection with the theft, fraud or dishonesty, i. e. the misconduct of the employee and, therefore, the order was not a bona fide order of discharge under the standing orders made in the Company's ordinary course of business. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner company to reinstate respondent No. 2 to his original post with full back wages. The Petitioner company approached this Court by a Writ Petition and as the matter arose in Bombay, it was heard on the original Side by Mr. Justice Mody.