TMI Blog1985 (4) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 7, 1963, as such. He was posted at Cambay, Gujarat, and later on, on December 24, 1963, sent back to Dehradun. The office order dated February 26, 1964, recites that the appellant has been appointed as storekeeper till further orders and the post is sanctioned for the period February 7, 1964, to February 29, 1964. In other words, a man selected in an open competition was offered the post which was to last for 22 days roughly. He was also told that his appointment was purely temporary and that other terms of service were those as set out in the letter dated December 7, 1963, one of which was that the appellant will be on probation for a period of six months from the date of the appointment and the same may be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority and that the appointment may be terminated at any time by a month's notice given by either side. On January 13, 1965, the appellant was informed in writing by the Memorandum No. PF/K-44/64-ENT that the appellant, on successful completion of the probation period of six months, is continued in service on regular basis until further orders. By Office order dated April 6, 1967, the appellant, who was described as storekeeper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the expression in Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and, therefore, the Model Standing Orders enacted under the Act were not applicable to the undertaking of the Corporation. However, the High Court examined an alternative contention that assuming that the Industrial Establishment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, does apply to the undertaking of the Corporation, yet in view of the provisions contained in section 13B of the Act, no provisions of the Act would apply to the undertaking of the Corporation. The High Court repelled the contention of the appellant that the order of termination of service is violative of Oil and Natural Gas Commission (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1964, observing that as the service of the appellant was not dispensed with on the allegation of misconduct, but as it was an order of termination of service simpliciter in accordance with the Regulation 25, no other regulation is shown to have been contravened by the impugned order. The High Court rejected the submission on behalf of the appellant that the Corporation is a State or at any rate an "instrumentality of the State" as contemplated by article 12 of the Constitution, and, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar basis as storekeeper. Thus, effective from January 13, 1965, the appellant was appointed on a regular basis as storekeeper. There is nothing to show in the order that on completion of the probation period, he was appointed as a temporary storekeeper. The words used are : "He is continued in service on a regular basis until further orders." The expression "until further orders" suggests an indefinite period. It is difficult to construe it as clothing him with the status of a temporary employee. It is even worse than being a probationer because the apprehended further order may follow the very next day. Therefore, the expression "until further orders", being thoroughly irrelevant, has to be ignored. It is even inconsistent with the appointment on regular basis as stated in that very order. If the appellant was appointed on a regular basis, his service cannot be terminated by one month's notice. If it is by way of punishment, as the High Court has found it to be so, it will be violative of the principles of natural justice in that no opportunity was given to the appellant to clear himself of the alleged misconduct which never found its expression on paper but which remained in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approach of the High Court in this behalf is not appreciable. Accepting the finding of the High Court that the appellant was removed from service on the ground of his unsatisfactory work, the same could not have been done without an enquiry in accordance with, principles of natural justice. At any rate, the action appears to be thoroughly arbitrary. If the facts are properly viewed, this public sector corporation has disclosed the typical private employer's unconcealed dislike and detestation of an active trade unionist. From the facts stated in the earlier portion of the judgment, it appears that the appellant was a protected workman. Add to this the fact that the secret letter of Mr. L. J. Johnson dated September 6, 1967, reveals the inner working of the mind of the top brass of the Corporation where Mr. Johnson states that Mr. Joshi (appellant) is the main trouble-maker in the Corporation. Earlier, on March 29, 1967, the Assistant Director wrote to the Director of Stores to transfer the appellant from Dehradun to Assam, which is the usual management response, namely, to transfer an active trade union worker to weaken the trade union movement. Even a charge of victimisation qu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in uninterrupted service and he is entitled to full back wages. We would have been perfectly justified in giving the declaration and making that order. However, the appellant is out of service from December 29, 1967, till today. period of nearly 18 years have rolled by and he will have to go back to the same chagrined master. We, therefore, enquired from learned counsel appearing for the appellant whether substantial and adequate compensation would be more acceptable to him or reinstatement with back-wages. The appellant opted for the latter and Mr. B. Datta, learned counsel for the Commission, conceded that the Corporation would willingly pay Rs. 2 lakhs as and by way of back wages and compensation in lieu of reinstatement. This matter was adjourned to enable the learned counsel for the appellant to work out the spread-over of backwages. Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted the calculations of backwages. The figures therein set out are not disputed. We accept the same and treat it as part of the judgment. A copy of it shall always be annexed to the copy of this judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is quashed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
