L MICHAEL Vs. JOHNSON PUMPS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Industrial law in India has many twilight patches, illustrated by the present appeal which projects the problem of an employee whose services have been terminated simpliciter by the Management, a pump manufacturing enterprise, issuing a notice ending the employment and offering one month's pay as authorised by the relevant Standing Orders. The thorny legal issue is whether the ipse dixit of the employer that he has lost confidence in the employee is sufficient justification to jettison the latter without levelling and proving the objectionable conduct which has undermined his confidence so that the tribunal may be satisfied about the bona fides of the 'firing' as contrasted with the colourable exercise of power hiding a not-so-innocuous purpose

(2.) The backdrop. The facts and circumstances become decisive of the fate of the case even where the law is simplistic or fair in its face. Here, what are the events end environments of employment reading to the worker being given the boot Is the order an innocent and therefore, legal quit notice sanctioned by the Standing Orders which does not stigmatise the worker but merely bids him good-bye Or is it a sinister intent to punish masked as a guideless order based on 'loss of confidence', an alibi which on a certain reading of this Court's rulings, is also a protective armour against judicial probe and setting aside

(3.) Michael, a permanent employee of proved efficiency and six years standing, was appreciatively given two 'merit' increments. But a letter of September 2, 1970 told him off service giving him one month's 'notice-pay' discharging him without damning, as distinguished from dismissing him for misconduct.