PRADEEP SINGH PARIHAR Vs. EVEREADY INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was appointed as Store Clerk on 26-2-1977 by the first respondent. He was posted as Territory Supervisor, Jabalpur, on 1-4-1991. By communication dated 11-12-1997, the services of the appellant were terminated with effect from 12-12-1997 and a cheque for a month's salary in lieu of notice was enclosed with that letter.

(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 58 (2) of the M. P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') before the Appellate Authority (Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur) for setting aside the termination and for reinstatement with back wages and compensation. In the appeal, the appellant contended that his termination, without enquiry and without opportunity to show cause, was invalid. The employer resisted the appeal contending that it was entitled to terminate the services of the appellant without assigning any reason as provided under Section 58 (1) of the Act, if reasonable cause existed for such termination. It set out the grounds to show 'reasonable cause' in its reply, and also led in evidence to establish 'reasonable cause'. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 7-4-2001, allowed (he appeal and directed the employer to reinstate the appellant with full back wages.

(3.) THE employer challenged the said order of the Appellate Authority in W. P. No. 2386/2001. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 24-6-2003 [2003 (3) M. P. H. T. 257], allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge held that sub-section (1) of Section 58 of the Act enables the employer to dispense with the services of the employee for a 'reasonable cause' by giving a month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice. He further held that 'reasonable cause' for dispensing with the services of an employee can be overall unsatisfactory performance and that the requirement of 'reasonable cause' is not equivalent to proof of any specific or positive misconduct enumerated in Rule 14 of the M. P. Shops and Establishment Rules, 1959. He also held that the documents produced and exhibited by the employer (warning letters, Annual Performance Appraisal Reports etc.) clearly demonstrated that the work and conduct of the appellant while discharging his duties were unsatisfactory and that there was 'reasonable cause' for dispensing with' the services of the appellant. The learned Single Judge held that t he action of the employer was an act of 'weeding out worthless' as the appellant had become a 'dead wood' in terms of work and efficiency. The said order of the learned Single Judge is challenged in this Letters Patent Appeal.