UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. G.S. MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal at the instance of the Defendant, the Union of India. The litigation, culminating in this appeal, has a long and chequered history. The Respondent G. S. Misra was an employee in the Railway Workshop of the B. N. Railway at Kharagpur. He was at first a first -grade apprentice and, thereafter, charge -hand in the Machine Shop Department. In the meantime, the administration of this Railway had been taken over by the Union of India and the post of Chief Inspector of Production fell vacant and Misra applied for the post, but he was not selected for it. He made representation to the authorities which bore no result. On the other hand, he was served with a charge -sheet and was ultimately discharged from service, on March 9, 1948, by the Superintendent, Mechanical Workshop. As a protest, by started hunger -strike and an agitation grew up over this matter. Thereafter, an Enquiry Committee was set up by the General Manager for the purpose of enquiring "into the circumstances leading up to and resulting in the removal from service of Mr. G.S. Misra, acting charge -hand, locomotive workman, Kharagpur." The Committee consisted of representatives of the different labour unions as well. The Committee was unanimous that the conduct and actions of Mr. Misra warranted his removal from service and made certain other recommendations as to how the post should be filled in. Therefore, the General Manager terminated the services of Misra by a letter dated June 19, 1948, with effect from June 21,1948 (Ex. C/25). Subsequently,, in 1951, the Plaintiff filed the present suit, out of which this appeal arises, alleging that the order of his termination from service was wrongful, improper, illegal and ultra vires and for adequate relief 's.

(2.) The suit was contested by the Union of India, which supported the order of discharge. The learned Subordinate Judge, who first tried the suit, came to the conclusion that sufficient opportunities had been given to Misra and that the order of discharge was quite valid and sufficient in law. Misra filed an appeal and the learned District Judge, on appeal, agreed with the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge and dismissed that appeal. Thereupon, Misra filed a second appeal in this Court, which was heard by a Divisional Bench of this Court and, on January 16,1961, the order of the two Courts below was set aside and this Court directed that the Court should come to a finding as to the nature of the appointment held by Misra, or, in other words, whether it was terminable under the contract of service or under the Rules. The matter went down to the trial Court and it came to the conclusion again that the Plaintiff was not entitled to any relief 's whatsoever as he was a temporary hand and his services were terminated in accordance with the Rules. Misra again appealed to the learned District Judge. The learned District Judge agreed with the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge that Misra's service was of a temporary nature and he was liable to be discharged under the Rules. But he came to the conclusion that Sec. 240(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935, which was the law applicable at the relevant time, had not been complied with and Misra had not been given a proper hearing before the General Manager had passed the impugned order and, accordingly, the learned District Judge set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge and decreed the suit on contest with costs in the lower Court. He declared that the order of termination of service, passed by the General Manager, by his order, dated June 19, 1948, embodied in Ex. C/25, was illegal and ultra vires.

(3.) Against this judgment and decree the Union of India has filed the present appeal. On behalf of the Union of India, Mr. Basu submits that, after the learned District Judge had found actually that the order of discharge was not passed on account of any misconduct on the part of Misra he erred in holding that Sec. 240(3) has any application to the facts of this case. It does appear that, after the case was remanded back to the trial Court, the Union of India examined a witness and the evidence of this witness showed quite unmistakably that, at the time of discharge, Misra was not a permanent employee but was a temporary hand only.