Decided on July 18,1973



- (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a clerk in the Nuasahi Chromite Mines belonging to opposite party No. 3, with effect from 10-7-1961. The terms of appointment were purely temporary for six months only, with a condition that opposite party No. 3 will have the right either to terminate or to reappoint the petitioner for any further period (annexure-1 ). The petitioner joined his duties and continued in service till 26-11-1970. Then he was holding the post of time-keeper. It is averred in the petition that during this span of his service period, there was no allegation of any negligence of duty on his part by the management (opposite party No. 3 ).
(2.) THE petitioner proceeded on leave for fifteen days from 10-11-1970 for which permission was accorded by the management (annexure 2 ). After that the petitioner joined his duties on 26-11-1970 at 7 A. M. as per his joining report (annexure 3 ). Abruptly, however, on 28. 11-1970 he received an order of the Chief Labour Officer dated 26-11-1970 (annexure 4) to the effect that his services would stand terminated on the 30th of November, 1970 afternoon. In the said order, the grounds of termination of his service were stated to be unsatisfactory work and disturbing activities which were considered not to be in the best interests of the management. It is this termination order (annexure 4) that is under challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that there was no charge framed against him for his alleged unsatisfactory work or for indulging in disturbing activities, that he was not called upon to explain these allegations at any time before terminating his services and thus he was denied natural justice. The petitioner on 4-1-1971 made a representation against the impugned order alleging mala fides and victimisation before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) cum Conciliation Officer, Orissa, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No. 2) and demanding his immediate reinstatement with full back wages (annexure 5 ). On 18-2-1971, the petitioner was intimated about the inquiry held by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Bhubaneswar which revealed his negligence and dereliction of duty (annexure 6 ). On receipt of annexure 6 on 2-3-1971, the petitioner gave reply on 16-3-1971 denying the charges and demanding an inquiry in his presence (annexure 7 ). In the writ petition it is further alleged that neither opposite party No. 2 nor his assistant did draw up any conciliation proceedings under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act nor was any opportunity afforded to the petitioner to explain the circumstances under which his services were terminated. The inquiry, if any, held by opposite party No. 2 was challenged as illegal and without jurisdiction. So far as opposite party No. 1 (Government of India) is concerned, the allegation in the petition is that neither opposite party No. 1 nor opposite party No. 2 has referred the disputes for adjudication as provided under the Industrial Disputes Act nor have they assigned any reason for such non-reference.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.