9911796707
TMI Blog1977 (10) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company are represented by Heckett Engineering Company (India Branch) Employees' Union, Puranhut, Burnpur (hereinafter referred to as the Union') which is recognised by the Company. 3. It appears that Mihar Majhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the workman') who was employed as a permanent driver by the Company was deputed on October 9, 1974, to carry some materials in Fargo Truck No. WGH 6891 from its Burnpur plant to its Jamshedpur plant and to bring certain other materials from Jamshedpur plant to Burnpur plant in the same truck. One Shankar Kumar Gupta, an employee of a contractor working for the Company, was asked by the Company to accompany the workman on the aforesaid mission as a helper. After loading the truck with the materials which had to be brought over from Jamshedpur plant of the Company, the workman accompanied by Shankar Kumar Gupta set off for Burnpur on October 12, 1974. While the truck was thus on its way back to Burnpur, the workman stopped the truck near a tyre repairing shop at Chandil to have a punctured tube repaired. While leaving the said shop, the workman picked up four strangers in the truck in contravention of a circular of the Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d negligent driving of Fargo Truck No. WGH 6891 (PT-518-D) on 12th October, 1974 on your way back to Burnpur, the truck was involved in a serious accident. 2. You have picked up from Chandil four unauthorised passengers to travel into the said truck. 3. You have also allowed one of the unauthorised passenger to drive the said truck. 4. You have suppressed the true facts in your report submitted on 14th October, 1974 and given a false statement regarding the accident. 4. Not satisfied with the explanation tendered by the workman, the Plant Manager deputed Mr. M. M. Das, the then Personal Officer of the Company, to hold a domestic inquiry into the above mentioned charges. Accordingly, Mr. Das conducted a regular inquiry and found all the charges to have been established against the workman. On the receipt of the report submitted by Mr. Das, the Plant Manager passed an order on November 6/7, 1974 dismissing the workman. On being apprised of the order of his dismissal, the workman approached: the Union which raised an industrial dispute whereupon the matter was referred for settlement to the Conciliation Officer, Asansol. As the conciliation proceedings proved abortive, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, the Company has come up in appeal to this Court as stated above. 7. Appearing on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Lalnarayan Sinha has urged that the Industrial Tribunal has erred in holding that charges Nos,. 1 and 4 had not been brought home to the workman. He has. further urged that the appointment of the workman having been made by Mr. V. K. Balan, the Manager of the Company's plant at Burnpur, the latter was fully competent to dismiss the former and that the Industrial Tribunal was not right in holding that the impugned order of dismissal was passed by an unauthorised person. 8. Mr. Chatterji has, on the other hand, submitted that the findings of fact arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal in respect of charges Nos. 2 and 3 are wholly unjustified. He has further contended that the order of appointment of the workman having been made by the General Manager, the dismissal in question could not be effected by an authority other than the General Manager. Mr. Chatterji has lastly submitted that the misconduct attributed to workman did not warrant the major penalty) of dismissal. 9. We have gone through the entire record and have given our earnest consideration to the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appointing authority and Mr. V. K. Balan only acted on his behalf. 11. The submission made on behalf of the workman that in signing his appointment card, Mr. V. K. Balan acted for and on behalf of the General Manager cannot be accepted for another reason also. If Mr. Balan was competent to make the appointment of the workman as we have, by reference to the Standing Orders, shown that he was, there could be no question of his acting for or on behalf of the General Manager in signing the appointment card. The contention advanced in this respect on behalf of the workman is, therefore, repelled. 12. Having settled that Mr. V. K. Balan, who was the Plant Manager on the relevant date was competent to make the appointment of the workman and it was he who actually made the crucial appointment in that capacity, let us now advert to the question whether Mr. Balan was competent to pass the impugned order of dismissal. 13. Mr. Chatterji has, by reference to Standing Order No. 32 of the aforesaid Standing Orders, stressed that it was only the Company which was competent to pass the order of dismissal of the workman. The relevant portion of the Standing Order on which reliance is pla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the present nature for it is now firmly established that the power to terminate service is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment and is exercised as an incident to or consequence of that power (See Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer and Ors. [1966]1SCR120 and Kutoor Vengayil Rayarappan Nayanar v. Kutoor Vengayil Madhavi Amma and Ors. [1949] F.C.R. 66. In Kutoor Vengayil Rayarappan Nayanar v. Kutoor Vengayil Valia Madhavi Amma and Ors. (supra) Mahajan, J. (as he then was) speaking for the Federal Court approved the statement of Woodroffe On Receivers, Fourth Edition, that the power to terminate flows naturally and as a necessary sequence from the power to create. In other words, it is a necessary adjunct of the power of appointment and is exercised as an incident to, or consequence of that power; the authority to call such officer into being necessarily implies the authority to terminate his functions. 15. As in the instant case, the appointment of the workman was made by Mr. V. K. Balan as a Plant Manager and not for or on behalf of the General Manager and as the power of appointment implies and carries with it the power of dismi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
