Case: Steel Authority of India, Succesor of Bokaro Steel Limited Vs. Labour Court and Another

could not be dismissed at this stage and that the company should be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of the action it had taken against the respondent.3. From the order of the Labour Court two writ petitions were filed in the Patna High Court, one by the respondent praying for quashing that part of the order which permitted the company to lead evidence in support of its action in dismissing him, and the other by the company questioning the finding that the Chief Medical Officer was not competent to frame the High Court dismissed both the Writ petitions. The appeal before us has been filed by special leave by the company challenging the finding made by the Labour Court and approved by the High Court that the Chief Medical Officer of the company had no authority to frame the charges against the respondent or constitute the inquiry committee and as such the procedure followed in dismissing the respondent from service was bad.4. The only question for decision in this appeal is whether the authority who framed the charges against the respondent and constituted the inquiry committee had the power to do so. Before the Labour Court as well as the High Court the respective cases of the parties were based on the services rules of the appellant-company. It appears that this body of rules which had been approved by the Board of Directors was first published in January 1965. By resolution No. 40n dated October 1, 1964 the Board of Directors approved the Discipline and Appeal Rules which contained provisions concerning acts of misconduct, nature of penalties, authorities competent to impose the penalties, the procedure of imposing minor and major penalties etc. Dismissal from service is a major penalty. Rule 2(f) defines Disciplinary Authority as the authority competent to impose any penalty under these rules as specified in the schedule. The schedule shows that for all posts below the scale of pay Rs. 500-1, 100, the disciplinary authority is the appointing authority for the propose of awarding major penalties. It also appears from the schedule that the "empowered authority" meaning the authority to whom powers may be delegated by the appointing authority is competent to award only minor penalties to employees of the scale of pay below Rs. 500-1, 100. Rule 8 lays down the procedure for imposing the major penalties. The Labour Court as well as the High Court found on a reading of Rule 8 and other provisions of the Discipline and Appeal Rules including the schedule that in the respondents case it was the appointing authority, namely the Personnel Manager, who was the disciplinary authority and was as such competent to frame the charges and to constitute the inquiry committee and the Chief Medical Officer who exercised these powers in this case had no authority to do so. On a reading of the rules we have no doubt that this is the position. It was contended on behalf of the company that the Chief Medical Officer had the delegated power to frame the charges and constitute the inquiry committee in this case. In support of this contention reliance was placed on resolution No. 7 passed on February 11, 1964 by the Board of Directors of Bokaro Steel was authorised to sub-delegate his powers, delegated him by the Board to the heads of office under him. An Office Order dated November 5, 1064 was referred to show that pursuant to that resolution the Managing Director had delegated the procedural powers in connection with disciplinary action to the Personnel Manager including the powers to frame charges and constitute inquiry committees in consultation with and on the recommendation of the concerned heads of departments with regard to employees upto and including the grade of Rs. 400-800." At that time the head of the Medical department was called the Senior Executive Medical Officer Officer Officer. A subsequent office order was also mentioned of the date June 22, 1966 showing that in supersession of the Office Order dated November 5, 1964 so far as it related to delegation, of powers, the Managing Director had delegated full powers to all the heads of departments to frame charges and to constitute inquiry committee with regard to employees "up to and including the grade of Rs. 400-800 subject to rules and procedures and in consultation with the Personnel Department". It was stated that the post of the Senior Executive Medical Officer was abolished and the new post of the Chief Medical Officer was created in its place as the head of the department.5. It was pointed out by the Labour Court that the said resolution No. 7 dated February 11, 1964 or the Office Orders of 1964 and 1966 on which the company sought to rely did not form part of the service rules approved by the Board of Directors. The copy of the service rules given to us during the hearing of the appeal includes the various amendments to these rules made from time to time till July 1972 which were approved by the Board of Directors. This copy does not include the aforesaid Office Orders of 1964 and 1966 on which the appellant-company sought to build their case. We therefore, agree with the concurrent finding of the High Court and the Labour Court that the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the company which had been approved by the Board of Directors did not authorise the Chief Medical Officer to frame the charges against the respondent or to constitute the inquiry committee. The High Court and the Labour Court also rightly repelled a contention put forward on behalf of the company built on Rule 20 of the Conduct Rules for the employees which has no application in this case. In the view we have taken it is not necessary to examine the argument advanced by the respondent that the Office Orders of 1964 and 1966 were not enforceable in view of the provisions of Section9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]It appears that this body of rules which had been approved by the Board of Directors was first published in January 1965. By resolution No. 40n dated October 1, 1964 the Board of Directors approved the Discipline and Appeal Rules which contained provisions concerning acts of misconduct, nature of penalties, authorities competent to impose the penalties, the procedure of imposing minor and major penalties etc. Dismissal from service is a major penalty. Rule 2(f) defines Disciplinary Authority as the authority competent to impose any penalty under these rules as specified in the schedule. The schedule shows that for all posts below the scale of pay Rs.100, the disciplinary authority is the appointing authority for the propose of awarding major penalties. It also appears from the schedule that the "empowered authority" meaning the authority to whom powers may be delegated by the appointing authority is competent to award only minor penalties to employees of the scale of pay below Rs.100. Rule 8 lays down the procedure for imposing the major penalties. The Labour Court as well as the High Court found on a reading of Rule 8 and other provisions of the Discipline and Appeal Rules including the schedule that in the respondents case it was the appointing authority, namely the Personnel Manager, who was the disciplinary authority and was as such competent to frame the charges and to constitute the inquiry committee and the Chief Medical Officer who exercised these powers in this case had no authority to do so. On a reading of the rules we have no doubt that this is the position.It was contended on behalf of the company that the Chief Medical Officer had the delegated power to frame the charges and constitute the inquiry committee in this case. In support of this contention reliance was placed on resolution No. 7 passed on February 11, 1964 by the Board of Directors of Bokaro Steel was authorised tos powers, delegated him by the Board to the heads of office under him. An Office Order dated November 5, 1064 was referred to show that pursuant to that resolution the Managing Director had delegated the procedural powers in connection with disciplinary action to the Personnel Manager including the powers to frame charges and constitute inquiry committees in consultation with and on the recommendation of the concerned heads of departments with regard to employees upto and including the grade of Rs.t that time the head of the Medical department was called the Senior Executive Medical Officer Officer Officer. A subsequent office order was also mentioned of the date June 22, 1966 showing that in supersession of the Office Order dated November 5, 1964 so far as it related to delegation, of powers, the Managing Director had delegated full powers to all the heads of departments to frame charges and to constitute inquiry committee with regard to employees "up to and including the grade of Rs.t to rules and procedures and in consultation with the Personnel Department". It was stated that the post of the Senior Executive Medical Officer was abolished and the new post of the Chief Medical Officer was created in its place as the head of the department.It was pointed out by the Labour Court that the said resolution No. 7 dated February 11, 1964 or the Office Orders of 1964 and 1966 on which the company sought to rely did not form part of the service rules approved by the Board of Directors. The copy of the service rules given to us during the hearing of the appeal includes the various amendments to these rules made from time to time till July 1972 which were approved by the Board of Directors. This copy does not include the aforesaid Office Orders of 1964 and 1966 on which thesought to build their case. We therefore, agree with the concurrent finding of the High Court and the Labour Court that the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the company which had been approved by the Board of Directors did not authorise the Chief Medical Officer to frame the charges against the respondent or to constitute the inquiry committee. The High Court and the Labour Court also rightly repelled a contention put forward on behalf of the company built on Rule 20 of the Conduct Rules for the employees which has no application in this case. In the view we have taken it is not necessary to examine the argument advanced by the respondent that the Office Orders of 1964 and 1966 were not enforceable in view of the provisions ofof the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.