GOKULANANDA TRIPATHY Vs. MANAGEMENT OF SUNDARDAS D HANSRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for a writ of certiorari and is directed against the award of the Labour Court dated 16-1-73 (Annexure 5 ).

(2.) THE State Government referred the following dispute for determination of the Labour Court under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947: Whether the action of the management of M/s. Sundardas D. Hansraj, College Square, Cuttack-3 in terminating the services of Sri Gokulananda Tripathy with effect from 1-6-71 is legal and/or justified ? If not, to what relief Sri Tripathy is entitled?

(3.) THE short facts giving rise to the reference as available from the award and the writ application and the counter-affidavit, may first be taken note of M/s. Sundardas D. Hansraj, a partnership firm, stock and sell diesel and electric pumps for agricultural and industrial purposes. They also deal in other machineries and spare parts. With effect from 18-11-59, the petitioner was appointed by the firm to be in charge of promoting sales. His jobs was to give demonstrations and trials of pumps and machineries, to attend to difficulties experienced by customers and to facilitate technical advice to customers as and when necessary for the working of equipments sold by the management For these purposes the petitioner was required to contact Government Departments, industrial establishments and business houses as also other customers. He had to undertake tours now and then and provide effective liaison with Government and non-Governmental agencies. At the managements' expenses he was provided with the requisite training at Poona. According to the management the job handled by the petitioner demanded a high degree of trust and responsibility. The petitioner rendered good service for many years, but later got addicted to alcohol. Complaints started being received by the management of the unbecoming conduct of the petitioner. It is stated that he was found now and then in drunken conditions even in the office and misbehaved with his colleagues. The management persuaded the petitioner to change his habits, but there was no improvement. Ultimately mutual arrangement was arrived at as alleged by the management that the petitioner should quit and consequently a notice was issued terminating the petitioner's service with effect from 1-6-71 with a month's salary in lieu of notice.