MADHUKAR Vs. BHILAI STEEL PROJECT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case was employed as an assistant heater in the Tolling mills of the Bhilai Steel Project, Bhilai. In November 1960 he went on 22 days' leave. He, however, did not resume duties on the expiry of his leave on 17 December 1960, Instead, he sent an application for extension of leave up to 30 December 1960 on the ground that he was ill. It appears that this extension" of leave was not granted. On 5 January 1961 the petitioner received a notice from the General Manager of the Bhilai Steel Project asking him to explain his unauthorized absence from duty. The applicant says that he replied to this notice on 7 January 1961, In the meantime, respondent 1 passed an order on 19 December 1960 terminating the petitioner's service. The order simply mentioned that the petitioner's services were terminated with effect from the date of the service of the order on him, without prejudice to the right of the Hindustan Steel, Ltd. , to recover the expenditure incurred In connexion with his training under the agreement executed by him.

(2.) THEREAFTER the petitioner filed an application under Section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, in the labour court, Raipur, challenging the validity of the order terminating his services and praying for his reinstatement In service end for an order with regard to payment of back-wages. The labour court upheld the order of respondent 1 terminating the applicant's services and rejected the petitioner's prayer for reinstatement. It, however, held that under Clause 44 of the standing orders framed by the Hindustan Steel, Ltd. , the management could at any time terminate the services of a regular employee by giving him three months' notice and that as this notice had not been given to the applicant, the petitioner was entitled to get three months' wages in lieu of notice. Accordingly, the labour court made an order for payment of three months' wages to the petitioner.

(3.) THE petitioner then preferred a revision petition before the industrial court. The industrial court took the view that the order terminating the applicant's services was not mala fide but that it could not be upheld as the applicant was at no time informed by respondent 1 of the reasons for terminating his services, and the ground which the management advanced before the labour court for terminating his services, namely, " security reasons," was not mentioned even in the written statement which the management filed in the labour court. The Industrial court, therefore, set aside the order of the lower Court upholding the order of the management terminating the petitioner's services. It, however, further held that as the applicant's services were terminated bona fide for " security reasons," it would not be proper to make an order directing reinstatement of the applicant In service. On this view, the Industrial court rejected the petitioner's prayer for reinstatement and granted him compensation of Rs. 1,500 in lieu of reinstatement.