- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
(2.) This writ petition is directed against the award dated 25.02.2005 passed by the presiding officer Labour Court, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal, while replying the reference "whether the termination of service of Sri B.D. Singh, P.No.08623, workman of M/s Tin Plate Company of India Ltd., Jamshedpur is proper and justified", came to a finding at para 11 that "I find that report of the Enquiry Officer is based on evidence" and, accordingly, issue No.1 is decided in favour of the management. While deciding issue No.2 as to whether the termination order issued by the General Manager, Tin Plate Company was proper or not, it is held that as per Ext. M/12, the Managing Director Mr. R.K. Bhasin was only authorized as the disciplinary authority of the factory. It was argued that since Managing Director has got no power to delegate the same, the order of dismissal passed by the General Manager was not proper. Since the charge has been proved, it is held that the workman will not be reinstated but will be paid only wages up to the age of superannuation.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it will appear from the Standing Order of the Tin Plat Company, which has been annexed as Annexure-2, that as per Rules of Recruitment under Rule 5(c), the General Manager is the appointing authority an no appointment is valid until a service book setting forth the name of the candidate, job and rate, is signed by the General Manager and issued to the candidate. He has submitted that since the General Manager, who has issued the order of dismissal, was the appointing authority and he was still in his jurisdiction while passing the order dismissal. Since it is a settled principle of law that one, who is the appointing authority, has also the authority for dismissal. He relied a judgment in the case of P.K. Bose vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court, reported in AIR 1956 SC. 285, wherein it has been held that as per General Clauses Act, the person, who has power to appoint, has also got the power to dismiss and as such, since the petitioner has not been dismissed by any authority, subordinate to the General Manager or any authority subordinate to the Managing Directory, who was only authorized by resolution, the General Manager requires no approval of the Managing Director for dismissing the workman and as such, last portion of the order is bad in law and fit to be quashed.;