LAWS(APH)-1960-7-16

HENDRICKS AND SONS Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

Decided On July 29, 1960
HENDRICKS AND SONS Appellant
V/S
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment in Writ Petition No. 1091 of 1956, of our learned brother Srinivasachari, J. 1959 I L. L. J. 235, who confirmed the decision of the industrial tribunal in the case, and directed the dismissal of the writ petition.

(2.) THE facts out of which this writ appeal has arisen may be briefly stated: The appellants are the employers of Hendricks and Sons. , a firm of automobile repairers in Secunderabad. One Papiah was in the employment of the firm of the appellants, as a motor mechanic. For about a year prior to 1956, the appellants noticed a tendency on Papiah's part to bring: down the reputation of the business of the appellants and a series of complaints had been received by them from their customers expressing dissatisfaction at the repair work done by Papiah on their cars. On 21 January 1956 at about 2-45 p. m. a Hindustan car was entrusted to Papiah with instructions to dismantle the timing case and the engine-head of the car. When a representative of the appellants inspected the progress of work on the car at 6-15 p. m. the same evening, it was found that papiah had dismantled not only the timing base and the engine-head but also many other I parts and accessories of the engine, such as, the dynamo, the delco and the self-starter, which had no connexion with the job entrusted to Papiah. It transpired that these unnecessary parts had been dismantled by Papiah at the instance of the driver of the car, although he had not been instructed by the appellants to do so. It was further found that after the assembly of the head of the engine had been completed, it had to be dismantled as one of the head bolts had been broken by Papiah. All these, according to the appellants, resulted in considerable delay in effecting delivery of the car to the customer, thereby prejudicially affecting the good reputation of the appellants. The management having been dissatisfied with the conduct and work of Papiah and taking into account the conduct of Papiah during the past one year which was by no means satisfactory from the point of view of the management, they had served a show-cause notice on Papiah on 22 January 1956 wherein was set out the careless and negligent performance of the duty by Papiah in respect of the Hindustan car entrusted for repairs to him on 21 January 1956, and the inordinate delay that had resulted which caused loss to the firm and inconvenience to the customer; and Papiah was asked to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for negligent performance of his duty which amounted to misconduct in the view of the management.

(3.) IN response to this show-cause notice, Papiah gave an explanation on 21 January 1956. Not having been satisfied with the explanation given by Papiah, the management intimated to him that an oral enquiry would be held on 7 February 1956, on which date Papiah was examined with reference to the charge made against him in the show-cause notice: and as no satisfactory explanation has been given in the evidence, and as the management felt that all the charges made against Papiah had been either established or admitted by him in the oral enquiry the management passed orders on 10 February 1956 dismissing him from service.