MANUBHAI GORDHANDAS Vs. ARVIND MILLS COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against an order of Sri N. M. Majmudar, Judge, First Labour Court, Ahmedabad, by Manubhai Gordhandas rejecting the application of the appellant. It appears that the respondent company had received information that certain workers employed by them were practising double employment by attending the New Swadeshi Mills in the third shift commencing from 12 midnight. The manager, therefore, ordered the labour officer, Sri H. K. Jani, to go to the New Swadeshi Mills and to detect them working in the third shift if possible. Thereupon Sri Jani attended the New Swadeshi Mills on 14 October, 1954, at 1-00 a. m. midnight and by the help of a timekeeper of the said mills found out three persons working in the mills in the third shift by giving wrong names. The appellant was one of them and he worked in the New Swadeshi Mills as Mukeshchandra Manubhai. A show-cause notice was given and an inquiry was held thereafter. The show-cause notice alleged that an information was received that after working for eight hours in the Arvind Mills, the appellant was working for another eight hours in the New Swadeshi Mills : that on making inquiries it was found that on 14 October, 1954 having worked in this mill in the third shift from 3-30 p. m. to 12 midnight the appellant has also worked in the third shift of the New Swadeshi Mills adopting the name Mukeshchandra Manubhai; that by reason of this act he has deliberately exposed the mills to prosecution under the Factories Act; that this kind of misconduct cannot be tolerated; he was therefore asked to show cause why he should not be dismissed. An inquiry was held and the appellant admitted his guilt and gave an admission of his guilt in writing and also an apology. Certain question regarding his past conduct were put to him and the management thereafter taking his past conduct into consideration passed an order dismissing him. The order of dismissal has been considered to be legal and proper by the lower court.

(2.) IT has been urged before me that it is not true that the appellant had exposed the respondent company to criminal prosecution under the Factories Act. Reliance has been placed on S. 60 read with S. 2 (e) which are follows :-

(3.) SRI Mehta, however, submitted that the definition of "day" in S. 2 (e) applies only when there is nothing repugnant to the subject or context and that the words "any day" used in S. 60 must not be confined to day as defined in S. 2 (e ).