K V NARASIMHA RAO Vs. LABOUR COURT GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been referred to a Full Bench by B.P. Jeevan Reddi, J. (as he theft was) and A. Lakshmana Rao, J. for deciding whether the conditions referred to in Sec. 40 (1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act (hereinafter referred to as the A.P. Shops Act, 1966) are conditions precedent for termination of the services of an employee and also for. resolving the apparent conflict between the decisions of two Division Benches of this Court viz., Andhra Bank Limited vs. Labour Court, Hyderabad and others (1) W.A. No. 304/ 76 dated 28-7-1976 decided by B. J. Divan, C.J. and Muktadar, J, on the one hand and Indian Airlines vs. K.D. Singh and another (2) W.A. No. 533/76 dated 23-2-1978 decided by S. Obul Reddy, C.J. and Amareswari, J.

(2.) The facts of this case are as follows :- The petitioner was recruited as a probationary-cashier i n Bata India Limited (3rd respondent) and was posted as cashier in Bata Shoes Stores, Guntur on 25-8-1979. Initially, the probation was to be for Six months. Subsequently the probation was extended for a further period of 3 months by an order dated 10-3-1980: That would mean that the probation "as extended would be upto 24-5-1980). Subsequently an order was passed on 9-5-1980 (served on 23-5-1980) stating tWat' the - petitioner's services during the period 0 f probation were unsatisfactory and that his services would stand terminated with effect from 24-5-1980. The order further stated that arrangements being made for settling his dues subsequently, a further letter dated 9-6-1980 was communicated offering to pay salary for one month in a sum of Rs. 554-37. It is revealed from the counter that the same was sent by money order but was refused by the writ petitioner. Questioning the said order of termination the petitioner filed an appeal before the competent authority under Sec. 41 (1) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 (Assistant Commissioner of Labour-I, Guntur) The said authority framed two., points for consideration: (1) whether the respondent had complied with the stipulations laid down under Sec. 40(1) of the A.P. Shops Act while terminating the services of the petitioner and (2) whether the termination was for reasonable cause The authority examined four witnesses for the petitioner and marked Exs. A-1 to A-4. For the respondent, it examined R-W. 1 and marked Exs. R-1 to. R-19. On the first point, it referred to certain decisions which held that notice pay could be paid later and held on point No. 1 against the petitioner. Coming to Point No. 2 it held that the termination of the services was not for any reasonable cause, but was mala fide and as a measure of victimisation for the persional reasons of the Manager of Bata Shoes Stores, Brodiepet, Guntur. The authority allowed the appeal by order dated 30-4- 1981 and directed reiastatement with full back wages and attendant benefits.

(3.) The Batta Company filed a second appeal before the Labour Court under Sec. 41 of the A.P. Shops Act. The said Court framed a single question viz., whether the employee-cashier was entitled to be reinstated with or without, back-wages or for any other alternative reliefs. It. observed that the petitioner was offered one month's salary subsequent to the termination and that he refused the same. It then went into the question whether the termination was for reascble cause or was mala fide and held that there was reasonable cause and allow the appeal and set aside the order of the 1st appellate authority. This order v passed on 24-2-19S2. Thus, it will be seen that both the authorities agreed that non-payment of notice-pay did not vitiate the termination order. They only differed on the question of existence reasonable cause.