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

2. The workman was employed as the head godown clerk in the first respondents engineering godown in Sadar office. He was mainly responsible for receipts and issue of stores from the engineering godown of the company; and, according to the management, he was holding a position of trust and responsibility. On March 12, 1960 the manager of Rungagora Tea Estate had sent a lorry to Sadar office to collect certain stores for the garden. The said lorry was being driven by a garden lorry driver Jamiruddin. When the driver was collecting stores from the engineering godown, the workman who was at that time the head godown clerk instructed the former to take three used pulleys belonging to the company in the lorry and to drop them at M/s. Sharma and Company at Jorhat. The driver was also informed that the pulleys were being returned to M/s. Sharma and Company as they belonged to the latter. The lorry driver loaded the pulleys in the garden lorry as directed by the workman. But as he forgot to drop them at the depot of M/s. Sharma and Company, the pulleys were taken to Rungagora Tea Estate. On March 16, 1960 the driver of the lorry informed the manager of Rungagora Tea Estate that the three pulleys had been brought to the garden godown by mistake instead of delivering them to M/s. Sharma and Company, as directed by the workman. As there was no challan produced by the driver for clearing the goods from the engineering office, the manager informed the assistant manager of Sadar office on March 18, 1960. On instructions from the Sadar office, the pulleys were returned to the garden office3. A preliminary investigation was held by the management regarding the circumstances under which the three pulleys came to be removed from the engineering godown. As the workman was not able to give any satisfactory explanation for the removal of the goods from the engineering godown, at was served on him by the management on March 21, 1960. In thet it was alleged that the workman Bhola Nath Thakur had removed three pulleys on March 12, 1960 from the company godown and loaded them in the garden lorry without authority and had instructed the lorry driver to drop them at the godown of M/s. Sharma and Company at Jorhat. It was further stated that the allegations, if proved, would constitute an offence under the standing orders of the company5. An enquiry appears to have been made by the Sadar office manager and ultimately on April 19, 1960, an order was passed that the charges have been proved to the satisfaction of the management and that the latter has lost confidence in the workman. As such, it was stated that the management considers it unsafe to retain Bhola Nath Thakur in the post of trust and responsibility occupied by him at that time. The order proceeds to state that in the interest of the company, it has been decided to terminate his service with effect from the date of the notice in accordance with cl. 9 of the standing orders of the company. The workman was also informed that he will be paid one months pay in lieu of notice and the wages due to him as mentioned in the statement attached to the letter. The workman was further informed that he will receive in full not only his provident fund contributions but also the contributions made by the employer together with interest due thereon. The workman was instructed to collect his dues on April 20, 1960. In the statement attached to the order of termination, the workman was informed that the following items will also be paid to him;1. Full pay and allowances for the period from0 of0 Rs. 229.24 2. One months pay and allowances in lieu of notice Rs. 361.95 3. Leave pay for 15 days earned leave A/c 1959 Rs. 180.98 4. Proportionate leave pay for 5 days for earned leave due up to0 A/c 1960 Rs. 60.33

Court's reasoning:
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