NUDDEA MILLS CO LTD Vs. SURENDRA GHOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Surendra Nath Ghose was an employee of the appellant company for many years since 1929. He brought this suit on an averment that sometime after he was served with a charge sheet alleging that he had committed theft of certain brass bushes and he submitted his explanation, the company did not allow him to resume his duties. His case is that no enquiry was made in the matter and that no formal order of suspension or dismissal was passed. He asked for a declaration that he had not been dismissed, that his service under the defendant company was still continuing that the action of the defendant company in verbally suspending him was arbitrary, illegal, wrongful and mala fide and for a permanent injunction against the company restraining it from interfering with the plaintiff's resuming his duties.

(2.) The main defence of the company was that the plaintiff was found guilty of gross misconduct and the Manager was satisfied of his guilt and was competent to dismiss the plaintiff without notice. It is further alleged that the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the action of the management.

(3.) At the trial it has been found that there was in fact an enquiry and that the Manager recorded his view that the plaintiff was guilty of the charge made against him and then recorded an order of dismissal. It appears that under a standing order which was adopted by the Company in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 the Company was entitled to dismiss the plaintiff without notice if he was found guilty of misconduct. It is also not disputed that theft or dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property, such as was alleged in the present case, amounts to misconduct. Under the standing order already referred to it was provided also that no order of dismissal shall be made unless the workman concerned is informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and is given an opportunity explaining the circumstances alleged against him. As both the Courts have found that this requirement was satisfied, this provision does not require further consideration. Another provision in the standing order is that a copy of the order awarding punishment passed by the Manager shall be supplied to the workman concerned. The trial Court held that this requirement had not been satisfied and that consequently the plaintiff was entitled to a decree as asked for. He accordingly decreed the suit