9911796707
TMI Blog1958 (4) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsion consumers , without having certain notes for the information of consumers printed at the back of the bills. The respondent submitted his explanation on the next day, marking a copy thereof to one of the directors of the Company. On December 2,1955, he was again asked to explain why he marked a copy of his explanation to one of the directors. The respondent submitted an explanation in respect of this matter also. On the same date, he was again asked to explain as to how and why certain double adjustments had been made in the accounts of 1954 relating to the consumers' department of the Company, the allegation being that a sum of ₹ 1,05,894-7-7 which represented the amount of bills of the Central Railway had been deducted twice in the accounts. The respondent submitted an explanation on December 3, 1955, in which he said that the charge was vague and that, after 1949, he was not in any way concerned with the preparation of summaries and annual statements of accounts of the consumers department. On December 5, 1955, an order of suspension was made against the respondent which stated that the order was to take immediate effect and to remain in force until furthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nded as provided for in the relevant Act, but he had no right to move the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders passed against him or for reinstatement, etc. Alternatively, it was urged that if the Standing Orders did not apply in the case of the respondent as was the respondent's case, then the Ordinary law of master and servant applied, and the only remedy of the respondent was to sue the Company in damages for wrongful dismissal. On these preliminary objections the learned Judge held (1) that the respondent was not an employee within the meaning of the Standing Orders and therefore his case was not governed by the Standing Orders; (2) that the relationship between the appellants and the respondent was contractual and not statutory and the remedy of the respondent was to sue the Company in damages for wrongful dismissal; and (3) as for amendment of the Standing Orders so as to include the respondent and persons in his category, the only remedy open to the respondent was to take action under the relevant Act by approaching a recognised union to move in the matter. On the dismissal of his petition, the respondent preferred an appeal under el. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in conformity with such model. The Schedule refers to the matters which are to he provided by Standing Orders, and item 8 of the Schedule relates to termination of employment, and the notice thereof to be given by employer and workman We may state here that the central Act contains a definition of workman which, at the material time in this case, meant any person employed in any industrial establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, labour for hire or reward, but did not include any member of the armed forces. Sections 4 to 10 of the central Act deal with (a) conditions for certification of Standing Orders, (b) certification of Standing Orders, (e) appeals, (d) date of operation of Standing Orders, (e) register of Standing Orders, (f) posting of Standing Orders and (g) duration and modification of Standing Orders. There are similar provisions in the local Act,Chapter IV of which deals with Standing Orders.Sub-section (1) of s. 30 of the local Act lays down-- Every employer, in respect of any industry to which this Act has been made applicable under subsection (3) of section 1, shall, within two months of the (late of such notification, submit to the Labo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be Workman by the Management Standing Order no. 3 classifies employees into certain categories and Standing Order no. 4 deals with tickets. In substance, it says that every workman, permanent 6 470 or temporary, shall have a ticket or card, and an apprentice shall have an apprentice card; the tickets or cards issued shall be surrendered when the workman is discharged or ceases to belong to the class of employment for which the card or ticket is issued. It is to be noticed that under the definition clause workman means such categories of employees as may from time to time be declared, to be workmen by the management and Standing Order no. 4 makes it clear that every workman, permanent or temporary, will have a ticket. Standing Order no. 16 deals with termination of employment, and cl. (1) thereof, relevant for our purpose, must be quoted in full- For terminating the employment of a permanent employee, a notice in writing shall be given either by the employer or the employee, giving one calendar month's notice. The reasons for the termination of the services will be communicated to the employee in writing, if he so desires at the time of discharge, unless such a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore he can be an employee, and if workmen are such categories of employees as have tickets, the distinction between the two disappears and. it is difficult to understand why two definitions were necessary. On a consideration, however, of' the subject or context of the Standing Orders, read in their entirety and in harmony with one another, it becomes at once clear why two definitions are necessary and what is the distinction between the two classes-, employees ' and ' workmen'-in the landing Orders. The expression ' employee' denotes a larger group-namely, all persons, male or females who are employed in the Office, Mains Department, Stores, Power House, or Receiving Station of the Company, either at Nagpur or Wardha. 'Workmen' denotes a smaller group, viz., such categories of employees as have been declared to be workmen, and who must have a ticket. Such a distinction is clearly intelligible in an industrial establishment, where for security and other reasons a system of tickets or passes is necessary for those who 472 work in the Power House or Mains Department or other places where essential machinery is installed while others, such as the cl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an apprentice card to every apprentice. It does not prescribe the issue of a pass or token, though the definition of a 'ticket' includes a pass or token. The suggestion further is that Standing Order no. 2 (a) itself authorises the issue of tickets to other employees, so that there may be one kind of tickets issued to workmen under standing Order no. 4 and another kind of tickets to other employees under Standing Order no. 2 (a). On this view, it, is suggested that the alternatives mentioned in Standing Order no. 8 (b) really amount to an option given to an employee either to mark his attendance or present his ticket. It is, however, difficult to understand the necessity of an option of this kind when every employee must have a ticket, particularly when the exercise of such an option is likely to defeat the very purpose for which tickets are issued in an industrial establishment. We do not, however, think that the case of the respondent is in any way strengthened by holding that Standing Order no. 2 (a) itself authorises the issue of tickets to employees other than workmen. Even on that construction, the failure of the Company to issue tickets under Standing Order no. 2 (a) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e held that they apply to all employees for whose benefit they have been made. We see no compelling reasons for holding that the Standing Orders do not apply to the respondent. In our view, and having regard to the subject or context of the Standing Orders, the words whose names and ticket numbers are included in the departmental musters in Standing Order no. 2 (a) do 475 not lay down any essential characteristic of employee and are applicable only in cases where tickets have been issued to an employee. The essential content of the definition of an employee is employment in the Office, Mains Department, eta., of the Company either at Nagpur or Wardha, and that of a workman the necessary declaration by the Company which would entitle him to a ticket under Standing Order no. 4. There is also another relevant consideration which must be borne in mind in construing the Standing Orders in question. Section 30 of the local Act imposes a statutory obligation on the employer to make, Standing Orders in respect of all his employees and a breach of the statutory obligation involves a criminal liability. That being so, the court would be justified, if it can reasonably do so, to const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing apparel can sue as paupers. We are of the view that the same rule of construction should apply in the present case, and the words whose names and ticket numbers are included in the depart. mental musters occurring in Standing Order no. 2(a) should be read as whose names and ticket numbers, if any, are included in the departmental musters and should apply in the case of those employees only who possess tickets and whose ticket numbers are capable of being entered in departmental musters; they are not intended to exclude employees who do not possess tickets or to whom tickets have not been issued and consequently whose names only are so entered. The learned Judges of the High Court were influenced by the circumstance that in an earlier- case D. C. Dungore v. S. S Dandige Miscellaneous Petition No. 134 of 1954 decided by the same High Court on September 23, 1955) the Company took tip the stand that the Standing Orders applied to employees to Whom tickets had been issued-a stand different from and inconsistent with that taken in the present case, (1) (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 624. It may be pointed out, however, that 1). C. Dungore of the earlier case was not an employee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the safeguards mentioned therein. The short answer to this argument is that no penalty for mis- conduct has been imposed on the respondent under Standing Order no. 18. The Company paid his salary to the respondent from the date of suspension to January 31, 1956, which also showed that no order was passed by way of punishment for misconduct. The Company chose to terminate the service of the respondent in accordance with Standing Order no. 16, and did not think fit to proceed against the respondent for any alleged misconduct, and it was open to the Company to do so. So far as Standing Order no 16. is concerned, all the requirements thereof have been complied with. That being the position, no other point remains for decision in the present case. The result, therefore, is that the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated September 26, 1956, are set aside and the writ petition of the respondent is dismissed. In view of the stand which the appellants had taken in the earlier case with regard to the Standing Orders, we think it proper to say in this case that the parties must bear their own costs throughout Appeal allowed - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
