TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Respondent: G.B. Pai, S. Chatterjee, Altaf Ahmed and A K Panda JUDGMENT DESAI, J. In exercise of the power conferred by Sec. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Government of the State of West Bengal as an appropriate Government referred the following dispute to the Ninth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal for adjudication. The reference reads as under: "Whether the termination of services of Shri Manas Kumar Mukherjee is justified ? To what relief, if any is he entitled?" Hindustan Steel Ltd. ('Employer' for short) dismissed Manas Kumar Mukherjee('Workman' for short) without holding any inquiry and without giving any opportunity to the workman to question or A correct the allegation of misconduct levelled against him and in violation of principles of natural justice. The employer tried to sustain its action by invoking its powers under Standing Order 32 of the certified Standing Orders of the Hindustan Steel Ltd. S.O. 32 reads as under: B "32. Special Procedure in certain cases. Where a workman has been convicted for a criminal offence in a Court of Law or where to General Manager is satisfied, for reasons to be recorded in writin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... into misconduct can be dispensed with. S.O. 32 clearly confers power upon the General Manager that on his being satisfied that it is inexpedient or against the interest of security to continue to employ the workman, then for reasons to be recorded in writing the workman may be removed or dismissed from service without following the procedure laid down in Standing Order 31. This archaic standing order reminiscent of the days of hire and fire is relied upon by a public sector undertaking to sustain an utterly unsustainable order and to justify an action taken in violation of the principles of natural justice, an action which has the- effect of denying livelihood and casting a stigma. One can appreciate-that in a given situation, and enquiry into misconduct may be counter-productive. Constitution itself contemplates such a situation when it enumerates siltations in which a punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank can be imposed without holding a disciplinary enquiry. Let it be extracted: "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State- ( 1) (2) No such person as aforesaid/shall be dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pensed with. In the last mentioned situation, the highest executive of the country, the President and the highest executive of State the Governor alone is entitled to dispense with the inquiry, if it is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such enquiry Dispensing with the enquiry in the first and third situation does not present a difficulty because in the first situation there is a conviction by a criminal court and in the third situation, the highest executive in the Centre and the State is empowered to dispense with the enquiry. It is in the second fact situation that one must evaluate the width of discretionary power to dispense with enquiry. The appointing authority is invested with power to dispense with enquiry. And in case of persons belonging to Class IV services, the appointing authority may be some-one in the lower administrative hierarchy and such an officer is invested with such draconian powers. Where such a power is conferred, on an authority entitled to impose penalty of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, before it can dispense with the inquiry, it must be satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cable to hold the inquiry. Turning to S.O 32, it nowhere obligates the General Manager to record reasons for dispensing with the inquiry as prescribed by S.O. 31. On the contrary, the language of S O. 32 enjoins a duty upon the General Manager to record reasons for his satisfaction why it was inexpedient or against the interest of the security of the State to continue to employ the workman. Reasons for dispensing with the inquiry and reasons for not continuing to employ the workman stand wholly apart from each other. A Standing Order which confers such arbitrary, uncanalised and drastic power to dismiss an employee by merely stating that it is inexpedient or against the interest of the security to continue to employ the workman are violative of the basic requirement of natural justice inasmuch as that the General Manager can impose penalty of such a drastic nature as to affect the livelihood and put a stigma on the character of the workman without recording reasons why disciplinary inquiry is dispensed with and what was the misconduct alleged against the employee. It is time for such a public sector undertaking as Hindustan Steel Ltd to recast S.O. 32 and to bring it in tune with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DURGAPUR STEEL PLANT Ref. No. Order/PF/MN 1215 24th August, 1970 ORDER Having considered the matter fully, I am satisfied that it is no longer expedient to employ Shri Manas Mukharjee, Assistant, Order Department, Durgapur Steel Plant any further. It is therefore ordered that Shri Manas Mukherjee be removed from the service of the Company with effect from 24. 8. 1970. He is allowed/three months' salary which he may collect from the cash section of the Finance Department by 26.8.1970. Sd/ Maj. ,Gon. Director Ineharge. The expression 'no longer expedient' as used in the order A clearly spells out the fact that some enquiry was started. What prompted the General Manager to close the enquiry, one cannot gather from the order- But our attention was invited to Ann. R-2 which according to the respondents specifies the reasons recorded in writing for dispensing with the enquiry. Briefly, in Ann. R-2, it is stated that the authority concerned has looked into the secret report sent to him by Shri P S-Rao Naidu, Planning Progress Officer, Order Deptt and the comments of DGM thereon. He has also stated that he has looked into- the report received from Sr. AO (E) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal as under The respondent shall recall and cancel the order dated August 24, 1970 removing the appellant from service and reinstate him and on the same day the appellant shall tender resignation of his post which shall be accepted by the respondent. The respondent shall pay as and by way of back wages and future wages, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 to the appellant within 2 months from today to be spread over from year to year commencing from the date of removal from service. We give one more opportunity to the respondent to recast its Standing Order 32 within a period of two weeks to be brought at best in conformity with the second proviso to sub-art. (2) of Art. 311 failing which its validity will be re-examined by this Court. The amount of Rs. 1, 50,000 directed to be paid to the appellant by the respondent comprises backwages, and all other allowances admissible to him from year to year from 1970 upto the end of 1984. The amount shall be spread over from year to year. If because of the lump sum payment as directed herein the respondent is required to deduct Income- tax as enjoined by Sec. 192 of the y Income-tax Act, 1961, the appellant shall be entitled to relief under Sec. 89 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
