EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD Vs. P S PARIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 7-4-2001 passed by respondent No. 2 appellate authority under the M. P. Shops and Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") by which respondent No. 1 P. S. Parihar has been reinstated in the service of the petitioner company.

(2.) IT is not in dispute that respondent No. 1 P. S. Parihar was appointed by the petitioner Company on 26-2-1977 as a Stores Clerk. He was working at Jabalpur from 1-4-1991 as Territory Supervisor. He was posted as "customer service assistant" at his request because of his poor health. His services were terminated by order dated 11-12-1997. It was a simple discharge without casting any stigma. He was given one month's wages in lieu of notice as per terms of appointment and also as per Section 58 (1) of the Act. He challenged the order of termination by filing an appeal under Section 58 (2) of the Act before appellate authority (the Assistant Labour Commissioner) on the ground that there was no reasonable cause for dispensing with his services. The appellate authority by the impugned order directed his reinstatement in service with full back wages. The petitioner company is registered under the Act and its registration number is 2607/jabalpur/c. E. /69. It is an "establishment" under the Act.

(3.) THE petitioners' case is that the respondent No. 1 was inefficient; his work was unsatisfactory; the quality of his work was very poor; he used to remain absent from duty and leave the head quarter without permission; he behaved in an indisciplined manner; he was not showing interest in the sales; in spite of repeated counselling he did not improve; the dealers were complaining against him; he was not completing even 10% of the job assigned to him; he was negligent and careless. These pleas were taken by petitioner-Company in the reply to the appeal of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner-Company filed 26 documents before the appellate authority and examined one witness to prove the same. According to the company the services of the respondent No. 1 were terminated for "reasonable cause". He was paid more than rupees one lac for heart surgery. He has been paid provident fund and gratuity as per rules. The respondent No. 1 was given light work on his request and even that he did not perform satisfactorily.