ELECTRONICS CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD Vs. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT AND SOCIAL WELFARE T DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF A P HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of our learned brother, Jeevan Reddy, J., in Writ Petition No. 1571 of 1976.

(2.) The petitioner in tho writ petition is a public limited company registered under the Companies Act and the 2nd respondent was an employee of the petitioner-company. He was originally appointed as a Labour Welfare Officer in the scale of Rs. 700-1250 on 23rd October, 1967. The 1st respondent in the writ petition is the Secretary to Government, Employment and Social Welfare (T) Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The appointment of the 2nd respondent as a Labour Welfare Officer was duly notified to the Chief Inspector of Factories as required by Rule 76 A of the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules, 1950. It is the case of the petitioner that, in the same scale of pay, there were several posts of Assistant Personnel Managers in the petitioner company. These posts had further avenues of promotion, whereas there was no avenue of promotion for the post of Labour Welfare Officer. Because of the better opportunities for promotion in the cadre of Asst. Personnel Managers, the 2nd respondent requested the petitioner-company in September, 1969, that the designation of the post held by him should be changed to that of Assistant Personnel Manager. On receiving the said representation, the petitioner-company consulted the Chief Inspector of Factories in that behalf and in a letter addressed by the petitioner-company on 2nd November, 1970, in this connection, it was stated that the 2nd respondent was a senior executive officer in the scale of Rs. 700-1250 and that, in addition to his normal welfare duties, he had been designated as in-charge of the Transport Section and the Estate Management of the Corporation, which duties were stated to be akin to the welfare activities of the employees of the petitioner- company. Hence the proposal to designate the 2nd respondent as Asst. Personnel Manager (Welfare) was also mooted in the same letter and the approval for the laid change of designation was sought for from the Chief Inspector of Factories. By his letter dated 1st March, 1971, the Chief Inspector of Factories informed the petitioner-company that he had no objection to the company re-designating the post of the Labour Welfare Officer as Assistant Personnel Manager (Welfare) in the circumstances set out in the petitioner-company's letter, dated 2nd November, 1970. After the approval was accorded by the Chief Inspector of Factories, the 2nd respondent was designated as Assistant Personnel Manager (Welfare). Subsequently, the said designation was again changed to Assistant Personnel Manager (Establishment) on 9th July, 1974. It is the contention of the petitioner-company that, after the 2nd respondent was designated as Assistant Personnel Manager (Establishment), he was not discharging any duties connected with the welfare of labour. On 1st November, 1975, the 2nd respondent was promoted as Personnel Manager (Establisment). On 14th January, 1976, the 2nd respondent's services were terminated by the petitioner-company. It is the petitioner's case that the termination of the services of the 2nd respondent was not by way of any punishment, but was without any stigma of punishment.

(3.) The 2nd respondent appealed to the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Rule 76-A (4) (v) of the Andhra Pradesh Factories Rules (hereinafter referred to as the rules). The Government allowed the appeal of the 2nd respondent and, by its order dated 1st May, 1976, set aside the order of the petitioner company terminating the services of the 2nd respondent and directed that he should be reinstated in service with immediate effect. It is this order that has been challenged by the petitioner-company in this writ petition.