MGMT OF TATA IRON AND STEEL CO Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner, the Management of the Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited, is to quash Annexure 1 appended to it, the English translation of which is Annexure 2. Annexure 1 is an order dated 27.11.1981 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Government of Bihar, respondent No. 1 directing the re-instatement of Sri Syed Shafi Ahmad, respondent No. 3 and passing certain consequential orders. This order has been passed by the Labour Commissioner under Rule 5(4) of the Bihar Factories Welfare Officers Rules, 1952, (henceforth referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) The relevant facts are not in controversy. Respondent No. 3 Sri Syed Shafi Ahmad was appointed as a Personnel Officer by the petitioner on 10.8.1959 and one of the conditions of his service in the letter appointing him as Personnel Officer, was that he would be governed by the works standing orders of the petitioner. In course of his employment the respondent No. 3 was promoted a number of times and at the relevant time was the Head of Department of Employment Bureau. According to the petitioner the company has delegated powers to various Heads of Dapartments and such delegation has also been made in favour of the respondent No. 3, copy of this order of delegation is Annexure 5. In November 1978 the respondent No. 3 was drawing salary of Rs. 21,00. On 2.11.1978 the services of the respondent No. 3 were terminated, under the contract of service, by giving pay for one month, in lieu of one month's notice and all his dues were offered to be allowed by him ; copy of this order of termination is Annexure 3. Against the aforesaid order of termination respondent No. 3 filed an appeal/complaint petition under Section 5(4) of the Rules before the respondent No. 1, the Labour Commissioner Government of Bihar, assailing the termination on two grounds, namely (1) that the letter of termination amounted to discharge, dismissal or otherwise a punishment and (2) that the terms of contract of service are contrary to the provisions of the Rules and it lacks legal and administrative property. Before the Labour Commissioner the petitioner filed a written statement questioning the maintainability of the said appeal/complaint on the ground that the Rules were not applicable to respondent No. 3 who was, at the relevant time, exercising powers much beyond the duties and functions envisaged under the Rules, and secondly such appointment of respondent No. 3 was governed by the works standing orders of the Company which was evident from the letter of appointment. His services could have been terminated under the terms of contract of service and such termination did not amount to dismissal, discharge or otherwise a punishment. It, was, however, stated that the termination was the result of loss of confidence by the Management in respondent No. 3. A copy of the written statement filed is Annexure 7 which was not complete and hence in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, a complete copy of the written statement along with annexure has been appended and marked as Annexure A. During the course of consideration of the appeal/complaint the Labour Commissioner had inquired from the peritioner as to why the petitioner bad lost confidence in respondent No. 3 to which a reply had bsen given copy of which is Annexure 9 and is dated 7.4.1979.

(3.) On a consideration of the materials on records by the impugned order the learned Labour Commissioner held that respondent No. 3 was a Welfare officer within the meaning of the Rules and that the termination of his service was unjustified and invalid because of the infraction of the Rules of natural justice and that the termination was by way of punishment. Having come to this conclusion he directed that the respondent No. 3 will be deemed to be reinstated on his post from 3.11.1978 that is the date of his termination, but there would be no direction for payment of salary to the respondent No. 3 from his date of termination to the date of his joining duties. But this would not constitute break in his service and for all other benefits he would be deemed to be in service from 3.11.1978.