MITA BOSE Vs. PHILIPS INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal arising out of an action in damages by an employee against the employer on account of wrongful termination of service, and sufferance of bodily injury in course of employment.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged that she was appointed by the defendant No.1 on 31-12-60 and confirmed in service on 6-1-62. While in service she was denied bonus and provident fund. She having insisted on such payment incurred the displeasure of the defendants 2, 3 and 4 and out of malice she was transferred from running belt section to packing section. The job required exercise of physical force. In course of discharging the job she became ill and had to consult an Orthopaedic Surgeon. She was given a helper ultimately to do the more arduous part of the job. The plaintiff was ultimately served with a charge-sheet issued by the defendant No.4. Despite protest the defendant No.3 was appointed an enquiry officer who was bearing malice and grudge against the plaintiff. She was not given the service of a. defence assistant of her choice nor she was allowed to examine witness of her choice. She was not given copy of deposition. Evidence was not recorded honestly. The enquiry was conducted illegally, and finally she was discharged with effect from 20-11-63 by a notice dated 28-12-63.

(3.) The defendants together by a joint written statement have controverted the allegations in the plaint. It is stated that bonus was being paid in terms of an agreement with the Union and the plaintiff was not entitled to it under the terms of the agreement. She was given the benefit of her provident fund as soon as she became entitled to it. The defendant company offered money in lieu of earned leave to the temporary employees. All the employees excepting the plaintiff accepted it. The plaintiff was employed at the running belt section. She was simply transferred from one position to another. It was a part of her job as an Assembler RA. It was no masculine job. Many females were employed there. The plaintiff was served with a charge-sheet after, several verbal warnings. The defendant No.3 being the Personnel Officer held the enquiry according to practice and rules of the company. According to the rules and practice a delinquent might be represented by a member of a recognised union or by a member of the works committee. P. C. Nandy was not a member of a recognised union and so he was not allowed to represent. A. K. Pal was not allowed to be examined as a defence witness since he had no connection with the instant case. By a letter dated 16-12-63 the plaintiff was asked to collect copy of deposition; but she did not. The depositions were faithfully recorded. Order of dismissal was perfectly a valid order. The proceeding was conducted according to law.