1977 (10) TMI 128 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the workman's dismissal.
2. Authority of the Plant Manager to dismiss the workman.
3. Establishment of charges against the workman.
4. Relief entitled to the workman.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Justification of the Workman's Dismissal:
The Tribunal was tasked with determining whether the dismissal of the workman, Mihir Majhi, a driver, was justified. The Tribunal found that the Company had established charges Nos. 2 and 3 against the workman but did not uphold the dismissal because it was not made by an authorized person. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the Plant Manager, Mr. V. K. Balan, was competent to make the appointment and thus had the authority to dismiss the workman. The Court emphasized that the power to terminate service is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment.

2. Authority of the Plant Manager to Dismiss the Workman:
The Tribunal held that the Plant Manager, Mr. V. K. Balan, was not authorized to dismiss the workman, stating that the General Manager was the appointing authority. However, the Supreme Court found that the Plant Manager was indeed the appointing authority as per the Standing Orders, and thus had the authority to dismiss the workman. The Court noted that the appointment card signed by Mr. Balan did not indicate he was acting on behalf of the General Manager and that there was no evidence to suggest otherwise.

3. Establishment of Charges Against the Workman:
The Tribunal found that charges Nos. 2 and 3 (picking up unauthorized passengers and allowing one to drive the truck) were established against the workman but did not find sufficient evidence for charges Nos. 1 and 4 (rash and negligent driving, and giving a false statement). The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on the establishment of charges, emphasizing that the findings were based on the evidence on record and did not warrant interference.

4. Relief Entitled to the Workman:
The Tribunal ordered reinstatement of the workman, stating that the dismissal was not by an authorized person. The Supreme Court, however, set aside this order, concluding that the Plant Manager was competent to dismiss the workman. The Court also noted that it was not open to them to substitute the order of discharge with benefits of past service for the dismissal. The workman was advised to approach the Company if he sought such relief.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the award of the Ninth Industrial Tribunal. The Court confirmed the Plant Manager's authority to dismiss the workman and upheld the charges established against him. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal to the respondents as per the Court's order dated June 1, 1977.