SRI S.C. DAS, CHAIRMAN, HINDUSTAN STEEL EMPLOYEES CONSUMERS COOPERATIVE STORES AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application is directed against an order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, respondent No. 2, dated 5.5.1979, contained in Annexure 12, setting aside the order of termination of the services of respondent No. 3 and reinstating him to his post of Sales Manager of the petitioner Consumers Cooperative Society, with full back wages. Respondent No. 3 was appointed as the Sales Manager under an appointment letter dated 3.11.73 (annexure 1). It would be better to quote the relevant stipulations stating the terms of the appointment as they are relevant for the questions agitated for our decision. The letter states that the post was offered on a purely temporary basis......with effect from 1st September 1973", on the terms and conditions that:

(2.) It appears from the perusal of the impugned order of the Labour Court as well as the statements made in the writ application and in the counter -affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, that some enquiry was also conducted by the employer in relation to certain irregularities and shortages in the cash balance under his charge. But the order of termination -Annexure 8, which was ultimately served upon him on 17.4.74 only stated that "your services are being terminated with immediate effect and in lieu of one month's notice, one month's pay of Rs. 175/ - is being paid to you in cash". Reference to Clause (ii) of the letter of appointment was also made in this letter, obviously meaning thereby that the termination was based on the terms of the appointment letter.

(3.) Respondent No. 3, however, took the matter to the Labour Court by an application under Sec. 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (for short "the Act") challenging the order inter alia on the ground that the enquiry held by the employer was conducted in a most perfunctory manner and without following the principle of natural justice. In the reply filed by the petitioners before the Labour Court (Annexure 10), they took a clear stand that the services of the respondent No. 3 were terminated in pursuance of the service conditions without taking "any serious view against the applicant on the basis of the report."