- (1.) IN this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of termination dated 10th August, 1982. The petitioner is an Honours Graduate from the Calcutta University in 1962 the Petitioner obtained Diploma in Jute Manufactures from Dundee technical college Dundee, Scotland with industrial Organisation and Work Study. He obtained Full Technology certificate from the City and Guild of London Institute. He had practical training as Student Apprentice in James Mackie and Sons Ltd. , Belfast and received training from the Thomas c. Kay in Dundee, U. K. In 1963, the petitioner joined Bird and Heilgers Group of Jute Mills as Covenated assistant. The petitioner held the post of Administrative Officer till his appointment in National Company Limited in 1976. By notification dated 30th July, 1976 the Central Government took over the management of National Company Limited as an undertaking under section 18a of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951 and appointed an "authorised Body" of eleven persons for the purpose of management of the National Company limited. Lt. General J. S. Aurora became the Chairman of the 'authorised Body' Pursuant to the advertisement issued by s. R. Batliboi and Company for the post of Purchase Manager (Jute) the Chairman of the "authorised Body" appointed the petitioner as Purchase Manager (Jute) at a salary of Rs. 2,000 /-and all other perquisites. The petitioner was confirmed in the said post and thenceforward continued as a permanent employee. On 27th April, 1980, The National Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Ordinance, 1980 came info force and the right, title and interests of the undertaking vested in the Central Government by Notification dated 28th April, 1980, under section 5 (1) of the Ordinance; right, title and interest of the undertakings instead of continuing to vest in Central Government vested in the existing central Government: Company of Jute Corporation of India. Thereupon, Jute Corporation appointed a committee of eleven persons to manage the affairs of the undertaking and the respondent no. 2 A. R. Chowdhury was one of them. On 19th July, 1980 the Ordinance was repealed and The National Company Limited (Acquisition, of Transfer and Undertaking) Act, 1 980 came into force. On 3rd, June, 1989 the Undertaking as a Central Government company was incorporated at National Jute Manufactures corporation Ltd. and the petitioner continued as Purchase manager (Jute ). Although on 2 8th February, 1980 the "authorised body" terminated the service of Mr. B. K. Basu, Executive. Director, he moved the High Court contending that he did not receive any letter of termination till then and asking relief against his threatened termination. He, however, did not prosecute the case and on 17th July, 1980, the application (being c. O. No. 7082 (W) of 1980 was dismissed. On 4th May, 1981, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of National Jute Manufactures corporation Limited issued, a General Notice that. Mr. B. K. Basu has been re-appointed with the approval of the textile Department. On 7th June, 1982, the said Mr. Basu transferred the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager which according to the petitioner is a lower rank. The petitioner accepted the said transfer to that post on protest. The said protest was recorded in a letter against the aforesaid transfer and a copy was forwarded to the respondent No. 2. Then on 17th January, 1982 , Mr. Basu made allegations against the petitioner that he had taken away two daily Jute Purchase registers for 1978 and 1979 and the petitioner replied the same stating, inter alia, that the used to ask him to sell without following the procedure. Then on 22nd February, 1982 mr. Basu wrote a confident fetter to the respondent No. 2 praying for an investigation about the allegations made in the letter dated 16th February 1932 and en 26th February, 1982 the respondent No. 2 endorsed a note for investigation. On 4th March, 1982 , Mr. Basu appointed a Board of Enquiry consisting of three of his subordinates. On 8th March, '1982 the petitioner attended the enquiry arid the Chairman of the heard refused to accept a written representation whereupon the petitioner met respondent No. 2, Managing Director, and reported the matter to him and on his suggestion filed a letter hong with the representation to his Receiving Clerk. On 10th march, 1982, the petitioner moved an application against his order of transfer as well as other orders and also for a writ of Quo-Warranto against Sri B. K. Basu and M. N. Roy, J. issued a Rule being C. R. NO. 1721 (W) of 1982 in terms of the prayers and status quo with the direction that investigation would go on but final order" should not be. given effect to. On 20th march, 1932 the respondent No. 1 affirmed an application for vacating or modifying the interim order. On 23rd, March, 1982 the petitioner affirmed an application for injunction restraining sri B. K. Basu from functioning as Executive Director. On 30th March, 1982 the advocate for the petitioner asked for inspection of records in respect of original approval by Textile Department, Government of India and the reply as given by the Unit-National, of the Corporation was "you are aware of the said approval as you have annexed a copy thereof in your client's petition" though no copy of approval was annexed except the circular by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director. Thereafter on 22nd April, 1982, M. N. Roy, J. disposed of the said two applications one made by the respondent No. 1 for modification of the interim order and the other made by the petitioner for injunction, by appointing Mr. K. K. Chatterjee as Investigation Officer in place of the Board on the suggestion of the learned Counsel who appeared for national Unit. On an application made by the petitioner on 2nd, June, 1982, M. N. Roy, J. fixed 23rd, June, 1982 as the date of hearing of the investigation. On 23rd June, 1982 the petitioner went before Sri K. K. Chatterjee but had to leave the investigation after an hour as Sri Chatterjee refused to receive written representations, call witnesses and document. On the same date two registered letters were sent, one by Mr. T. N. Banerjee, Advocate and another by the petitioner to Sri K. K. Chatterjee but both came back with the endorsement 'left' on 24. 6. 82. On 24th Jane, 1982 the petitioner made an application before M. N. Roy, J. for further directions'. But Mr. K. K. Chatterjee did not file any affidavit-in-opposition. The affidavit-in-opposition was affirmed by one a. R. Mukherjee the respondent No. 2 who conducted the proceeding before the investigation on behalf of the Corporation. On 5th July, 1982 the petitioner filed a suit being T. S. NO. 1251 of 1982 as the Corporation Officers were describing his absence as unauthorised though the petitioner filed leave applications with medical certificates and asked for a declaration that the letter dated 2 1st, June, 1982 was malafide and for injunction. The petitioner obtained injunction from dismissing him or penalising him otherwise owing to his absence. The respondent No. 1 moved this Court in revision against the said order before P. K. Banerjee, J. and obtained stay with the direction that the proceedings may continue and any action that may be taken by the Company may be taken and final order may be passed but the final order would not be communicated to the petitioner subject to further order. By the letter dated 26th July, 1982 the petitioner was informed that he had no leave due to his credit and period of his absence will be treated as unauthorised. M. N. Roy, J. rejected the said application of the petitioner made on 24th June, 1982 with the direction that the respondents would be entitled to take further steps in the matter if they were so advised subject to the result of the Rule No copy of the report of Sri K. K. Chatterjee was given to the petitioner and M. N. Roy, J. directed the respondents to give copy to the petitioner. On 9th August, 1982 M. N. Roy, J. vacated interim orders passed in the said Writ application of the petitioner being C. R. NO. 1721 (W) of 1982 and on 10th August, 1982 the letter of termination was issued. It may be mentioned that by the judgment dated 2nd June, 1983 M. N. Roy, J. upheld the contention of the petitioner in the said Rule that the said B. K. Basu, executive Director, had no authority to hold the post and the Rule was made absolute. An order of stay was obtained by the respondents from the Court of appeal
(2.) ON the aforesaid facts the petitioner contends that the termination of his services were invalid, motivated and contrary to the relevant rules and against the principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. The main contention is that the termination is not a termination simpliciter. It is the result of various concerted moves made by the respondents which in effect amounts to dismissal without affording him any opportunity of hearing.
(3.) THE principal contention of the respondents is that Section 13 of the National Company Limited (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings)Act, 1980 declares that terms and conditions of service as existing on the date of vesting of the company shall continue unless terms and conditions have been duly altered by the new Government Company. Since no alterations have been made in the terms and conditions of the petitioner's service, the conditions as laid down in the letter of appointment dated 8th October, 19 76 continued after the vesting. In other words, the contention is that the letter dated 10th August, 1982 is termination of service simpliciter.;