G. Mehrotra, C.J. - (1.) SRI K.C. Das opposite party No. 3 to this petition was appointed as a Stores Account Clerk in 1953 at Maijan Tea Estate. In 1959 the Management alleges that they found that, Sri Das could not cope with his regular duties and was always in arrears with his work. The Management terminated his services by a notice under Clause 9(a) of the Standing Orders. Thereupon an industrial dispute was raised by the Assam Chah Karmachari Sangha and the workmen of the Maijan Tea Estate. The State Government by its notification dated the 27th May 1960 referred the following two questions to the Labour Court for adjudication: 1. Whether the termination of the services of Shri K.C. Das, store account clerk of Maijan T. E. is justified?
(2.) IF not, is he entitled to reinstatement or any other relief in lieu thereof? 2. Before the Labour Court the case of the Union was that the store in charge of Sri Das was very big and in the past all along Sri Das was given helpers. In 1959 when Mr. Wilson was the Manager of Nagaghuli T.E. he came to Maijan as its Manager. He refused to provide Sri Das with any helper. The work -load on Mr. Das was thus increased and he was in arrears. He gave his explanation. But the Management refused to provide him with any helper and terminated his services under Clause 9(a) of the Standing Orders. Mainly before the Labour Court the ground taken was that the termination of his services was unjust as there was neither any proper inquiry made, he was not given an opportunity to show cause for the arrears of work and further that the termination was not bona fide. The point taken by the Management was that the services were properly terminated in accordance with the Standing Orders. The termination of his services was due to his inefficiency and Standing Orders in the case of inefficiency did not require any inquiry. The services could be terminated by giving notice. The Labour Court held that the termination of the services of Sri Das was punitive that is, by way of punishment and as such a domestic inquiry was necessary. As no domestic inquiry was held the Labour Court held that the termination of services of Sri Das was not justified. The Labour Court further held that there was mala fides on the part of the Management in terminating the services of Sri Das. On these findings the Labour Court gave an order deriding the reinstatement of Sri Das with all back wages with continuity of service.
(3.) BY means of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Management has challenged the award. The Management has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the award. Mainly the contention of Mr. Goswami for the Petitioner is that the Labour Court has a limited jurisdiction in interfering with the powers of the Management terminating the services of its employees. The condition precedent for the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is the existence of mala fides, unfair practice, victimisation and violation of the principles of natural justice In passing an order of termination. If these facts do not exist, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the exercise of the managerial power of termination of the services. As the grounds stated above are condition precedent for the exercise of the Labour Court's jurisdiction, any finding by the Labour Court on these facts is examinable by this Court. The facts on the existence of which the Labour Court's jurisdiction depends, are jurisdictional facts and the finding of the Labour Court can be examined by this Court. on a proper examination it will appear that the Labour Court was not right in holding that the principles of natural justice were violated in the present case. Nor the finding of the Labour Court that the order of termination was mala fide is justifiable. It is contended that the inefficiency is not a gross misconduct as contemplated under the Standing Orders and thus Clause 9 (c) of the Standing Orders was not attracted in the present case. There was thus no violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case and the Management was justified in terminating the services of the opposite party No. 3 by giving him notice under Clause 9 (a) of the Standing Orders.;