9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (5) TMI 177X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d lost your lien and the appointment with effect from December 3, 1980. In support thereof reliance was placed on clause 13 (2) (iv) of its Certified Standing Order. The appellant averred that despite his reporting to duty on December 3, 1980 and everyday continuously thereafter he was prevented entry at the gate and he was not allowed to sign the attendance register. He pleaded that he was not permitted to join duty without assigning any reasons. His letter of December 3, 1980 was marked herein as Annexure 'A' wherein he explained the circumstances in which he was prevented to join duty. The Tribunal found that the appellant had failed to prove his case. The action of the respondent is in accordance with the standing Orders and it is not a termination nor retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short 'the Act'. The appellant in terms of standing orders lost his lien on his appointment and so is not entitled to reinstatement. Clause 13 (2) (iv) standing order reads thus: If a workman remains absent without sanctioned leave or beyond the period of leave originally granted or subsequently extended, he shall lose his lien on his appointment unl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 716 that analysing the definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo) we find that termination by the employer of the service of a workman would not otherwise have covered the cases excluded in Clauses (a) and (b) namely, voluntary retirement and retirement on reaching the stipulated age of retirement or on the grounds of continued ill health. There would be no violational element of the employer. Their express exclusion implies that those would otherwise have been included . In para 77 at page 719 it was further held that right of the employer and the contract of employment has been effected by introducing Section 2(oo) . The contention of the management to terminate the service of an employee under the certified standing Orders and under the contracts of employment was negatived holding that the right of the management has been effected by introduction of s. 2(oo) and s. 25F of the Act. The second view was that the right as such has not been effected or taken away, but only an additional social obligation has been imposed on the employer to abide by the mandate of s. 25F of the Act to tide over the financial difficulty which subserves the social policy. This court relied on the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pon the relevant provision of the certified standing Orders to terminate the service of the workman/employee. By operation of S. 2(oo) the right of the employer under Cl.13(2) (iv), and the contract of employment has been effected. Moreover in Ambika Prasad Mishra v. State of U.P. and Ors., [1980] 3 SCC 719 at 72-23 para 5 6. A constitution bench held that every new discovery or argumentative novelty cannot undo or compel reconsideration of a binding precedent. It does not lose its authority 'merely' because it was badly argued, inadequately considered and fallaciously reasoned. In that case the ratio of this court on Art. 31A decided by 13 Judges bench in Keshwanand Bharti v. Union of India [1973] Suppl. SCR was sought to be reopened but this court negatived the same. His contention that expiry of eight days' absence from duty brings about automatic loss of lien on the post and nothing more need be done by the management to pass an order terminating the service and per force termination is automatic, bears no substance. The constitution bench specifically held that the right of the employer given under the standing Orders gets effected by statutory operation. In R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice of such temporary workmen to meet such exigencies and as soon as the work or service are completed, the need to dispense with the services may arise. In that situation, on compliance of the provisions of s. 25F resort could be had to retrench the employees in conformity therewith particular statute or statutory rules or orders having statutory flavour may also exclude the application of the principles of natural justice expressly or by necessary implication. In other respects the principles of natural justice would apply unless the employer should justify its exclusion on given special and exceptional exigencies. The cardinal point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether the person concerned should have a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case and the authority should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. It is not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely' the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case. In other words application of the principles of natural justice that no man should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the authority to act arbitrarily effecting the rig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action. Even executive authorities which take administrative action involving any deprivation of or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens, must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done. They have a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. They have to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice. The law must therefore be now taken to be well-settled that procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Art. 14. and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Art. 14 and the procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders effecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Art. 14. So it must be right,just and fair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive. There can be no distinction between a quasi-judicial function and an administrative function for the purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with just and fair procedure prescribed by law conformable to Arts. 14 and 21 so as to be just, fair and reasonable and not fanciful, oppressive or at vagary. The principles of natural justice is an integral part of the Guarantee of equality assured by Art. 14. Any law made or action taken by an employer must be fair,just and reasonable. The power to terminate the service of an employee/workman in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure is an essential inbuilt of' natural justice. Arts. 14 strikes at arbitrary action. It is not the form of the action but the substance of the order that is to be looked into. It is open to the court to lift the veil and gauge the effect of the impugned action to find whether it is the foundation to impose punishment or is only a motive. Fair play is to secure justice, procedural as well as substantive. The substance of the order is the soul and the affect thereof is the end result. It is thus well settled law that right to life enshrined under Art. 21 of the Constitution would include right to livelihood. The order of termination of the service of an employee/workman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising not o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
