ANNAPURNA HOTEL Vs. LABOUR COURT HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition arises out of Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 15 of 1966 (hereinafter called the Act). Sri V. Jagannadharao raised an interesting question stating that when the misconduct of the employee constitutes a reasonable cause his service can be terminated without making any enquiry.

(2.) The Tribunals below are at variance on the question whether the termination cf the 3rd respondent is in accordance with Sec. 40 of the Act. The Primary Authoritythe Industrial Relations Officer held that the order of termination is founded on reasonable cause within the meaning of Sec. 40 of the Act, but the Labour Court, Hyderabad, the Appellate authority reversed the said order and held that the termination is not based on reasonable cause but founded on misconduct and the failure to make the enquiry is fatal to the proceedings and consequently directed the reinstatement of the 3rd respondent with back wages.

(3.) It is urged that the 3rd respondent, the employee under the petitioner absented himself without permission from 9-7-76 till 19-7-76 and also did not attend to duty even after the said day and in view of his absence which is unauthorised his services were terminated by order dated 2-8-76 and hence even assuming that the said conduct is one of the enumerated misconducts within the meaning of Rule 19 (f) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Rules, 1968 (hereinafter called the Rules) the termination of the 3rd respondent is valid as the said conduct also constitutes a reasonable cause within the meaning of Sec. 40 as necessary wages and the gratuity were paid to the employee. In other words, the learned counsel states that the employer has got two alternative powers of termination viz., one the power to punish the employee for misconduct and the other the power to terminate simplifier on paying the necessary emoluments and when the conduct constitutes reasonable cause he is entitled to terminate the services without making the necessary enquiry though the said conduct constitutes a misconduct within the meaning of the Act. He elaborates his agrument by submitting that the misconduct and reasonable cause may overlap and the employer is not bound to make enquiry invariably and punish the employee but he may choose to terminate the services if the said misconduct also constitutes reasonable cause. The employee is not represented by any counsel and hence I requested Sri K. Nagarajarao to assist the court and he readily accepted the same. I place on record my appreciation of his assistance to the court.