THE EMPLOYEES OF HENDRICKS & SONS, SECUNDERABAD Vs. THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment in W.P. No. 1191 and 1956. of our learned brother Srinivasachari, J. who confirmed the decision of the Industrial Tribunal in the case, and directed the dismissed of the writ petition.

(2.) The facts out of which this writ appeal has arisen may be briefly stated.

(3.) The appellants are the Employers of Hendricks and Sons, a firm of Automobile Repairs 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 of Papiah a 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 the 21st January 1956, at about 2-45 P.M., a Hindustan car as 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 the work on the car at 5-15 P.M., the same evening it was found that Papiah had dismantled not only the timing-case and the engine head but also many other parts and accessories of the engine such as the dynamo the delco and the self-starters, which had no connection 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 word of Papiah and taking into account the conduct of the 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 of Papiah on the 22nd January 1956 wherein was set out the careless and negligent performance of the duly by Pariah in respect of the Hindustan car entrusted for repairs to him on the 21th 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.