PRASUN KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE Vs. INDIA MACHINERY CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No. 1 was a Junior Sales-cum-Service Engineer of India Machinery Company Ltd. Petitioner No. 2 was a Sales Supervisor of the said company. The said India Machinery Co. Ltd. was incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and it had been carrying on business of manufacture and sale of weighing machines, looms, machine tools, etc. The Central Government by an order dated November 25, 1972, under Section 18A of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, had authorised the chairman and the two members nominated by it to take over the management and control of the said undertaking, namely, India Machinery Co. Ltd. for a period of five years subject to the conditions set out in the said order. The Government of India by another notification dated August 24, 1977, had authorised the Industrial Reconstruction Corporation of India Ltd. to take over the management of the said company. The effect of the said notification has been extended from time to time and the last of such extension was due to expire on May 24, 1983.

(2.) On March 14, 1981, the chief executive of the India Machinery Co. Ltd. had issued notice to the petitioners and three other officers to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against them. The petitioners had instituted Title Suit No. 93 of 1981 in the second Court of the Munsif at Howrah, inter alia, for a declaration that the said show-cause notices were illegal and also for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents from taking any action against them. Both the trial court and lower appellate court had refused the prayer of the petitioners for granting temporary injunction. The petitioners filed a revision application in this court which was heard by Janah J. The learned judge, by his order dated February 17, 1981, allowed the said application, set aside the orders passed by the court below and granted a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners.

(3.) Thereafter, on April 13, 1982, the chief executive of the said company had withdrawn the show-cause notices dated March 14, 1981. On November 22, 1982, the chief executive of the said company by letters addressed to the petitioners terminated their services with the company with immediate effect because their "activities and conduct are found not conducive to the job entrusted" to them. The chief executive enclosed with each termination letter account payee cheques being one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice and also offered to pay them their other dues subject to adjustment of advances taken by them. On November 26, 1982, the petitioners moved this court under Article 226 and obtained the present rule.