Case: Workmen of Sudder Office, Cinnamara Vs. Management of Sudder Office and Another

inquiry that was conducted by it related to the circumstances under which the pulleys were removed from the engineering godown. It was not conducting any inquiry as it is normally understood when disciplinary proceedings are intended to be taken against a workman for misconduct. On the other hand from the very beginning in the order of termination nation it has stated that it has lost its confidence in the workman. In the letter to the union, the management has stated that it has lost confidence in the workman. Again in the written statement dated March 20, 1962, before the Labour Court, the management has categorically stated that the termination of services of the workman was because the management lost its confidence and trust in the workman. 28. It was the stand taken by the management that it has lost confidence in the workman and that action was taken under cl. 9 of the standing orders by terminating the services simpliciter. That was challenged by the union that the order has been so worded as to camouflage the real intention of the management, namely to dismiss the employee for misconduct. The Labour Court, no doubt, held that the action must have been taken under cl. 10(a)(2) of the standing orders for misconduct which resulted in the passing of the order under the cloak of cl. 9 of the standing orders, and that cl. 9 has been invoked only as a camouflage. If this finding of the Labour Court was supported by the union and the workman before the High Court, and accepted by the High Court, the position would have been entirely different. On the other hand, before the High Court, the counsel for the workman quite clearly conceded that he is not placing reliance on the finding of the Labour Court that cl. 9 has been invoked only as a camouflage. 29. Added to this there is the other crucial circumstance, namely, the Labour Court not having accepted the plea of the union that the management was prompted by mala fides, victimisation and unfair labour practice, when it passed the order of termination. Therefore, before the High Court all the other surrounding circumstances, namely, camouflage, victimisation, unfair labour practice and mala fides had to be eschewed from consideration. Then the question was a very simple one whether the order is one of dismissal for misconduct or one by way of termination of the services simpliciter on the basis of the contractual obligation contained in cl. 9 of the standing orders. The High Court having due regard to the various circumstances, referred to by us earlier, has come to the conclusion that the order is not one by way of dismissal but only an order of termination simpliciter on the ground that the management had lost confidence and trust in the workman. No doubt the standing order does not say that the services of a workman can be terminated when the employer loses its trust and confidence, but absence of such a provision, in our opinion, is inconsequential. There is no controversy that the workman Bhola Nath Thakur was the head clerk at the relevant time in the companys engineering godown and he was responsible for the maintenance of stores belonging to the company of the value of about six lakhs of rupees. This has been accepted by the union itself and if that is so, the workman was holding a very responsible post where integrity and honesty are quite essential. The management could have, no doubt, taken disciplinary action against the workman concerned according to law. But it has not done so in this case. On the other hand, when the circumstances showed that the company can no longer place its trust and confidence in the workman, the management terminated his services by making available to him all amounts that he will be entitled to in case of termination simpliciter under cl. 9 of the standing orders. The entire basis of the Labour Courts award for holding that the order is one of dismissal is its view that the management has invoked cl. 9 to camouflage its action. When that approach has been given up on behalf of the workman before the High Court, the reasoning of the Labour Court falls to the ground and the High Court has acted within its jurisdiction under Art. 226 when it set aside the order of the Labour Court especially when there has been no finding of victimisation, unfair labour practice or mala fides recorded against the management. To conclude, we are satisfied that the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of the Labour Court. 30. As we agree with the view of the High Court that the order is one terminating the services of the workman simpliciter, it is unnecessary for us to refer to the various decisions relating to the circumstances under which the Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal can interfere with the findings recorded in a domestic inquiry. Nor is it necessary to consider the decisions referred to us relating to the circumstances under which a reinstatement need not be ordered even if it is held that the order of termination of service or dismissal cannot be justified. 31. Before we conclude we have to record a statement made before us by Mr. Chagla, learned counsel for the management, that his clients are also prepared to pay as ex gratia six months salary to the workman concerned. This will be over and above the amount that may have been paid or still remains to be paid on the basis that the order of termination is one of simpliciter as held by us. In the order dated April 19, 1960, it is stated that one months pay and allowances in lieu of notice are Rs. 361.95P. Six months wages now agreed to be paid by Mr. Chagla will be worked out on this basis. The amount will be paid to the workman within three months from today.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]15. We do not find from the record that anyt was filed on the side of the workman before the High Court, Before the High Court, it is seen, the counsel appearing for the union and the workman represented that he was not placing any reliance on the statement contained in the award that the order of termination is a camouflage adopted by the management to cover up what really is an order of dismissal. It is further seen that it was conceded by the same counsel that the use of the expression "camouflage" by the union has no value in the circumstances of the case. But the counsel for the workman appears to have taken up the stand that he will be able to sustain the order of the Labour Court on the ground that the termination of the services is really one by way of dismissal21. From a perusal of cl. 9, it is seen that there is a power in the management to terminate under. (a) the employment of a workman forthwith by paying the amount of wages mentioned therein in lieu of notice. Notice of termination is mandatory only in cases of persons enumerated in. (b).e (d) provides that the employer is bound to pay the wages earned by the workman and any other dues within the period mentioned therein.s (a), (b) and (d) will have to be read together.e (c), on the other hand, deals with the powerof the management