NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. M VISWANATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-company seeks to quash the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Central, Hyderabad dated 26-8-1975 in I.D.No.8 of 1970 directing M. Viswanath, the 1st respondent herein, to be reinstated as Accountant in the company.

(2.) The services of the 1st respondent, who was working as an Accountant in the petitioner-company, have been terminated by the company with effect from 2-9-1968. The Government of India referred the question of the validity and justification of his dismissal to the Industrial Tribunal, the 2nd respondent herein. The case was registered as I.D.No.8 of 1970 wherein it was held that the dismissal was not justified as it was in contravention of the provisions of Section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act. It was however, held that he was not entitled to reinstatement but was awarded a compensation of Rs.4887-50p. together with sum of Rs.425/- in lieu of reinstatement, on the ground that the petitioner-company had lost confidence in him. The respondent employee filed W.P.No.5429 of 1972 questioning the validity of the award in so far as his prayer for reinstatement is concerned. The petitioner company did not contest the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal that the order of dismissal was vitiated by the omission to issue a proper and requisite notice as contemplated by section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, but supported the award in so far as its decision not to reinstate the employee but only directing payment of compensation, as the company lost confidence in him. As the learned Judge thought that the approach by the Tribunal to assess and consider the entire material relevant for the issue of reinstatement or in the alternative to direct compensation to be paid, was erroneous, he set aside the award to that extent and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for deciding that aspect in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the petitioner filed W.A.No.6 of 1975, which is said to be still pending. Pursuant to the order of this court in the writ petition, the Tribunal heard and disposed of the matter and passed the impugned award on 26-8-1975 directing reinstatement and payment of one-third of back-wages. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Sri B.K.Seshu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the order of reinstatement of the employee is erroneous, illegal, unjust and improper as the petitioner company has lost confidence in the employee and the opinion of the company-employer is bonafide and based on sufficient material. This claim of the petitioner is opposed by Mr. M. Panduranga Rao, the learned counsel for the respondent-employee, contending inter alia that the order of termination of his client's services is illegal and void as it is violative of section 40 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, that petitioner has not established that the post held by the employee requires trust and confidence and the employee has acted in breach of such trust and confidence, that the termination of the respondent's services is also violative of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and that there is no merit in this writ petition as the Tribunal has rightly directed reinstatement of the employee.