SIDDHANATH KRISHNAJI KADAM Vs. DADAJEE DHACHJEE AND CO. PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this Special Civil Application was an employee of respondent No. 1 for about twenty -three years. On September 30, 1969 he was discharged from service. The petitioner challenged this order of discharge, and the dispute was referred, in due course to the third Labour Court, Bombay, at the instance of the Union. In his written -statement, the petitioner claimed that the discharge, being punitive in essence, was, legally bad, mala fide and an act of victimization. The employer, on the other hand, among other details, pleaded that it had received some complaints about, the petitioner's unhealthy activities and, doing some outside motor repairing work privately for consideration. The Assistant Engineer of the Company, relevant submitted a report on September 19, 1969 saying that the employee was found by him working at a Dadar garage of some one else on September 16, 1969, though he had left the office on the pretext of going to Repairing Board for personal work. The employer tried to defend the order on the ground that it had lost confidence in the employee due to the above. According to the employer, no enquiry was necessary for an order of discharge simpliciter, it not being punitive.

(2.) AT the trial, in addition to examining Rane, who was at the relevant time, the General Manager of the Company, the employer examined Assistant Engineer relevant. The petitioner examined himself only on the limited question of his having remained unemployed during all this period.

(3.) MR . Deshmukh, the learned advocate for the petitioner, contends that once the basis of the discharge is found to be, some act or omission of the employee amounting to misconduct, the discharge cannot but be punitive. The employer cannot remove the employee without proving the same by holding enquiry as per Rules. His reluctance to do so and resorting to an easy course of discharge simpliciter amounts to colourable exercise of power. Strong reliance is placed by Mr. Deshmukh in this behalf on the judgment of the Supreme Court in L. Michael v. Johnson Pumps Ltd. : (1975)ILLJ262SC and the passage from another judgment of the Supreme Court in Murugan Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal A.I.R. [1945] S.C. 1496, quoted in para. 14 of the former case.