1958 (4) TMI 116 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Standing Orders to the respondent.
2. Termination of employment in accordance with Standing Orders.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
4. Compliance with procedural safeguards in Standing Orders.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Standing Orders to the respondent:
The primary issue in this appeal was whether the Standing Orders of the Company applied to the respondent. The Standing Orders were approved by the certifying officer under the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (central Act) and by the Labour Commissioner under the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (local Act). The respondent, a 'workman' within the meaning of the central Act and an 'employee' under the local Act, contested that he was not an 'employee' as defined by the Standing Orders due to the absence of a ticket number in the departmental muster.

The Court held that the inclusion of the name and ticket number in the departmental muster was not an essential characteristic of an 'employee' as defined in the Standing Orders. The definition of 'employee' encompasses all persons employed in the Office, Mains Department, Stores, Power House, or Receiving Station of the Company, regardless of whether they possess a ticket. Thus, the Standing Orders applied to the respondent.

2. Termination of employment in accordance with Standing Orders:
The respondent's services were terminated under Standing Order no. 16(1), which requires a notice in writing for terminating the employment of a permanent employee. The reasons for termination need not be disclosed if the Company's Managing Director deems it not in the interest of the business. The Court found that the termination was in accordance with the Standing Orders, as the respondent was given the requisite notice and the Managing Director decided not to disclose the reasons.

3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:
The High Court initially dismissed the respondent's petition, holding that his remedy lay in suing the Company for damages for wrongful dismissal. However, a Division Bench later allowed the appeal, quashing the orders of suspension and termination, and declared the respondent continued to be an employee. The Supreme Court did not delve into the jurisdictional scope of Article 226 in this case, as the primary issue was the applicability of the Standing Orders.

4. Compliance with procedural safeguards in Standing Orders:
The respondent argued that the Company did not comply with the procedural safeguards under Standing Order no. 18, which deals with penalties for misconduct. The Court noted that the Company did not impose any penalty for misconduct but terminated the respondent's services under Standing Order no. 16. The Company paid the respondent's salary from the date of suspension to January 31, 1956, indicating no punitive action for misconduct was taken.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Standing Orders applied to the respondent and his termination was in accordance with these Orders. Consequently, the respondent's writ application failed. The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of the High Court dated September 26, 1956, were set aside. The writ petition of the respondent was dismissed, with parties bearing their own costs.