Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1961 (4) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... date of his detention. The order of suspension stated that the respondent was not entitled to any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. On March 29, 1950, the manager passed in order terminating the service of the respondent with effect from July 9, 1949, the date on which he was suspended. He was given one month's pay in lieu of notice. The respondent was released from detention on October 25, 1950, by an order made by the High Court at Bombay. He had been in detention from July 9, 1949, till October 25, 1950, during which period the orders suspending him and terminating his service were passed. 2. After his release, the respondent started proceedings under the Payment of wages Act for arrears of his dues from the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... trail Court dismissed the suit, having rejected the other points raised by the respondent. 5. The respondent appealed to the High Court at Bombay. The High Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court that the respondent was a temporary employee and that there had been no. violation of Art. 311, The High Court however held that the Plaintiff's plea that he was arbitrarily picked out and sacked remained unanswered in the further Written Statement of the Defendant, and, therefore, the allegation must be taken to be admitted. The respondent's plea above referred to was added to the plaint by an amendment and hence the reference to the further written statement. The High Court gave an opportunity to the appellant to amend the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... to say that Art. 311 is not concerned with the suspension from service, 7. The other question turns on Art. 16 of the Constitution. The provision of this article to which we were referred, is contained in CI. (1) which is in these terms : There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The contention of the respondent is that matters relating to employment include matters concerning termination of employment. It is said that this article provides that there shall be no. inequality of treatment in the termination of the service of any employee of the Government. This interpretation of the article is disputed by the appellant. It is however un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riod. That also put him in a separate class. The evidence does not show, that the junior employees referred to were otherwise in the same class as the respondent. In these circumstances, the fact that the service of the respondent was terminated while employees junior to him were retained in service does not by itself prove unequal treatment and, there is nothing else on which the respondent has relied to establish discrimination. 9. The real question is, was the High Court justified in its conclusion that as the pleadings stood, the appellant must be deemed to have admitted that the respondent had been arbitrarily picked up and sacked , that is to say, had been subjected to hostile discrimination. It is necessary now to refer to the pl .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is clear. To take the present case, if a pleading is considered sufficient where it is merely stated that there has been arbitrary discrimination, it is impossible for the other side to meet it adequately unless he knows in what manner the discrimination is said to have been made. Thus if the discrimination had been because between A and B who were similarly situated, and A had been preferred, then that should have been stated. It would then be possible for the other side to say either that A and B were not similarly situated or that the act complained of did not amount to a discrimination for any other reason. In the absence of the particulars all that the opposite side could do would be simply to deny that there had been discrimination a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates