9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h an order dated march 22, 1984 of the Secretary, West Bengal State Electricity Board terminating his services as Deputy Secretary with immediate effect on payment of three month's salary in lieu of three month's notice. The order gave no reasons for terminating the services of the respondent and there was nothing in the order which could possibly be said to attach any stigma to the respondent. Apparently the order was made under Regulation 34 of the Board's regulations which enables the Board to terminate the services of any permanent employee 'by serving three months' notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu there-of'. The High Court contrasted Regulation 34 with Regulation 33 which provides for the termination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be terminated by serving three months' notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu thereof." Contrasting Regulations 33 and 34 the High Court came to the conclusion that Regulation 34 was arbitrary in nature and suffered from the vice of enabling discrimination. The High Court, therefore, struck down the first paragraph of Regulation 34 and as a consequence quashed the order terminating the services of the first respondent. The learned counsel for the West Bengal State Electricity Board submitted that Regulation 34 did not offend Art. 14 of the Constitution, that sec. 18A and 19 of the Electricity Supply Act laid down sufficient guidelines for the exercise of the power under Regulation 34 and in any case the power ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The learned judge struck down Regulation 48 (a) and we agree with his reasoning and conclusion. In Workman, Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Ltd. (A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 251) this Court had occasioned to hold that a Standing Order which conferred such arbitrary, uncanalised and drastic power to enable the employer to dispense with an inquiry and to dismiss an employee, without assigning any reason, by merely stating that it was expedient and against the interest of the security to continue to employ the workman was violative of the basic requirement of natural justice. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon Manohar P. Kharkhar v. Raghuraj ([1981] II L.L.J. 459) to contend that Regulation 48 of the Air India Employee's Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
