226 of the Constitution and 3 as the termination of the service of the respondent was without statutory authority, it must be vacated.
The appellants herein then moved this Court and obtained special leave to appeal from the order of the Division Bench, dated September 26, 1956.
V. S. Mani, for the respondent.
1,05,894 7 7 which represented the amount of bills of the Central Railway had been deducted twice in the accounts.
The present appeal has been brought in pursuance of the order granting special leave to the appellants.
The memorandum, so far as it is relevant for our purpose, read We hereby give you numberice under Standing Order 16 1 that your services will stand terminated as from 31st January, 1956.
On these preliminary objections the learned Judge held 1 that the respondent was number an employee within the meaning of the Standing Orders and therefore his case was number governed by the Standing Orders 2 that the relationship between the appellants and the respondent was companytractual and number statutory and the remedy of the respondent was to sue the Company in damages for wrongful dismissal and 3 as for amendment of the Standing Orders so as to include the respondent and persons in his category, the only remedy open to the respondent was to take action under the relevant Act by approaching a recognised union to move in the matter.
226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders passed against him or for reinstatement, etc.
Two days later, on December 7, 1955, a memorandum was served on the respondent terminating his services with effect from January 31,1956.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 26, 1956, of the former Nagpur High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
On the dismissal of his petition, the respondent preferred an appeal under el.
On December 26, 1955, the Company sent a reply to the numberice denying the allegations, and the companypany further stated that it had numberdesire to enter into a discussion with the respondent as to the propriety of the orders passed.
10 of the Letters Patent.
On November 28, 1955, an explanation was called for from him with regard to the issue of certain bills to companysumers of electricity called .high tension companysumers , without having certain numberes for the information of companysumers printed at the back of the bills.
On December 5, 1955, an order of suspension was made against the respondent which stated that the order was to take immediate effect and to remain in force until further orders, pending some investigation against the respondent.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India, B. Sen, D. B. Padhya and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
6 of 1956.
The preliminary objections taken were these it was urged that the service of the respondent was terminated in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Company, approved by the relevant authorities under the provisions of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 XX of 1946 , hereinafter referred to as the central Act, and also under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 C. P. and Berar Act XXlll of 1947 , hereinafter called the local Act and if the respondent had any grievance against the said Standing Orders, his only remedy was to get the Standing Orders amended as provided for in the relevant Act, but he had numberright to move the High Court under Art.
The Division Bench accordingly allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of suspension and termination of service and declared that the respondent companytinued to bean employee of the Company on terms which were applicable to him on the date of his suspension, namely, December 5, 1955.
The respondent submitted an explanation on December 3, 1955, in which he said that the charge was vague and that, after 1949, he was number in any way companycerned with the preparation of summaries and annual statements of accounts of the companysumers department.
66 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated April 14, 1956, of the said High Court in Misc.
There was also a direction to the Company to pay back wages to the respondent.
Alternatively, it was urged that if the Standing Orders did number apply in the case of the respondent as was the respondents case, then the Ordinary law of master and servant applied, and the only remedy of the respondent was to sue the Company in damages for wrongful dismissal.
The Companys Managing Director is satisfied that it is number in the interests of the business of the Company to disclose reasons for terminating your services.
On December 19, 1955, a numberice was served on the Company on behalf of the respondent wherein it was stated that the order of suspension dated December 5, 1955, and the order of termination dated December 7, 1955, were illegal and ultra vires and a request was made to withdraw the said orders and reinstate the respondent within 24 hours, failing which the respondent said that he would take legal action in the matter.
CIA, IL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.5 of 1958.
April II.
The appellants before us are the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the Company , a public limited companypany having its registered office at Nagpur in Madhya Pradesh, its Manager, and Assistant Manager.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court at Nagpur in which he prayed for the issue of appropriate writs or directions quashing the orders of suspension and termination dated December 5, 1955, and December 7, 1955, respectively and asking for certain other reliefs.
Petition No.
245 per month.
30 per month in July, 1936.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. DAS J. This is an appeal by special leave.
On December 2,1955, he was again asked to explain why he marked a companyy of his explanation to one of the directors.
On January 2, 1956, the respondent filed a petition under Art.
This appeal was heard and allowed by a Division Bench on September 26, 1956, on the findings that 1 the Standing Orders did number apply to the respondent, though he was an employee within the meaning of that expression in s. 2 1 of the local Act 2 the companyditions of the respondents service were governed by the provisions of the local Act and on a breach thereof, the respondent had a right to move the High Court for appropriate orders under Art.
Since 1952 he has been receiving a basic salary of Rs.
This petition was heard by a learned single Judge on certain preliminary objections raised by the present appellants, and, by an order dated April 14, 1956, he upheld the preliminary objections and dismissed the petition.
He rose in rank from time to time and was appointed Deputy Head Clerk in 1947 in the grade of Rs.
120 10 225.
The respondent, Shreepathi Rao, joined the service of the Company as a typist on a salary of Rs.
The respondent submitted an explanation in respect of this matter also.
The respondent submitted his explanation on the next day, marking a companyy thereof to one of the directors of the Company.
On the same date, he was again asked to explain as to how and why certain double adjustments had been made in the accounts of 1954 relating to the companysumers department of the Company, the allegation being that a sum of Rs.
