SITAMARCHI CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, which has been filed by Sitamarhi Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. and two of its officers, challenges the validity of the decision dated the 22nd of March, 1969 (Annexure 3) given by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur, in Case No. 11 of 1966 under Section 26(2) of the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953 hereinafter to be called "the Act."

(2.) THE relevant facts for the disposal of this application may be shortly stated as follows. Rajdeo Prasad (respondent No. 2.) was in the employment of Sitamarhi Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., as a typist clerk on a monthly salary of Rs. 119 since 1955. He was suspended from duty with retrospective effect from the 11th of January, 1966, by the order of the honorary secretary of the bank dated the 20th of January, 1966, on the ground that he had remained absent from duty without leave from that date. Respondent No. 2 was ultimately dismissed from service by a letter dated the 19th of August, 1966. Respondent No. 2 thereupon filed an application under Section 26(2) of the Act before the Labour Court, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur, within the prescribed time for his reinstatement from the date of his dismissal and for full wages and other benefits. On the basis of that application Case No. 11 of 1966 was instituted. Before the Labour Court it was alleged on behalf of respondent No 2 that he did not remain absent from duty without leave as alleged by the petitioners. Respondent No. 2 put forward the case that 11th and 12th January, 1966 were public holidays on account of the death of the then Prime Minister Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri during which period he fell ill and was not in a position to attend to his duty. He accordingly, submitted an application for leave for two days, that is, 13th and 14th January, 1966. As he did not recover from his illness, he submitted two other applications subsequently on the 15th and 17th of January, 1966, for extension of his leave but the bank did not pass any order on those applications. It was further alleged that prior to the passing of the order of suspension on the 20th of January, 1966, respondent No. 2 was asked to give explanation for his absence from the 11th of January, 1966 by a letter dated the 15th of January, 1966. He was given seven days' time to submit his explanation. He submitted his show cause against the order of suspension on the 27th of January, 1966 and also submitted a copy of the medical prescription granted to him by a doctor of Lakhisarai Medical College. THE bank, however, did not pass any orders in spite of the request made by him from time to time. He thereupon filed a petition before the Labour Court on the 25th of July, 1966, for recovery of his wages for the period of his suspension. Subsequently the bank by a letter dated the 19ih of August, 1966, dismissed him from service with retrospective effect, from the 11th of January, 1966 on the ground of habitual absence without leave, neglect of duty, disobedience and indiscipline. It was alleged that the bank did not serve any notice on respondent No. 2 as required by Sub-section (1) of Section 26 of the Act and dismissed him without holding any enquiry and without giving him an opportunity to defend himself in such enquiry. Respondent No. 2 raised certain other contentions before the Labour Court. On behalf of the bank it was alleged that respondent No. 2 was employed on purely temporary basis and on account of his laches and misconduct he was first suspended and later discharged. It was further alleged that he was in the habit of absenting himself without leave and was also a habitual late comer. THE honorary secretary of the bank had made personal enquiry on receipt of the application for leave from him and had visited his house on the 19th of January, 1966, while returning from tour. He had found that respondent No. 2 was not at his home and it was reported to him that he had gone to Motihari in connection with marriage negotiation. It was also alleged that respondent No. 2 was negligent in his duties and used to indulge in acts of wilful disobedience and insubordination. On behalf of the bank it was contended that since the honorary secretary had himself enquired into the matter and had fully satisfied that respondent No. 2 was guilty of misconduct, no further enquiry was necessary. It was alleged that the entire matter was discussed at a meeting of the Board of Directors on the 7th of August, 1966, and after consideration the board decided to dismiss respondent No. 2.

(3.) THAT finding of the Labour Court that the bank did not hold a proper enquiry into the alleged charge of misconduct and did not allow him sufficient opportunity to defend himself at such an enquiry has been arrived at by it after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. This finding is unassailable and it cannot be interfered with. The finding that it has not been satisfactorily proved that respondent No. 2 was guilty of any misconduct is also a finding of fact and it is based on a proper consideration of the materials placed before the Labour Court. Realising the difficulties that the above findings cannot be assailed, Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, very fairly argued this case on a short point. learned Counsel contended that the order of reinstatement of respondent No. 2 passed by the Labour Court is illegal as no reasons have been given by it for giving that relief to him. In support of his contention, he relied on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Calcutta Chemical Co. Limited v. D. K. Burman, 1969 B.L.J.R. 510. In that case it was held that the expression "pass orders giving reasons therefor" occurring in Clause (a) of Sub-section (5) of Section 26 of the Act must be interpreted to mean that the Court is bound to give reasons not only for holding that the order of dismissal or discharge is not justified, but also in support of the concluding portion of the order as to why a particular relief or reliefs is or are being given to the employee concerned. The decision in that case no doubt supports the contention of the learned Counsel that reasons have to be given for giving a particular relief to the employee concerned. In the instant case, as I have already indicated, the main relief which was sought by respondent No. 2 was the relief for reinstatement on the ground that his dismissal was wrong, The relief of reinstatement was opposed mainly on the ground that respondent No. 2 had already attained the age of 61 years. In paragraph 17 of its decision the Labour Court considered the question whether the objection raised on behalf of the bank regarding the reinstatement of respondent No. 2 was tenable or not. The Labour Court ultimately rejected the contention raised on behalf of the bank with this observation :