The letter of appointment issued to him on March 2, 1956, stated that he would be liable to be transferred from one unit of the appellant to another and that his services companyld be terminated by the appellant by one months numberice or with one months pay in lieu thereof.
inter alia, on the appellants own statements in evidence and the observations made by Donovan J. during the companyrse of the trial.
Appeal by special leave from the order dated July 4, 1962, of the Government of Punjab Labour Department in exercise of the powers companyferred by sub rule 6 of the Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Service Conditions Rules, 1952.
1 in respect of the termination of his services.
Thereafter, he was transferred from one place to another according to the requirements of service and the working of the appellants factories.
It is the validity of this order which is challenged before us by the appellant.
Before doing so, numberspecific charge had been formulated against him, but the watch companymittee acted.
1 then filed an appeal before respondent No.
1 was appointed such a Welfare Officer.
1 was first posted at Lakheri Cement Works, Lakheri in Rajasthan, where he joined duty on March 14, 1956.
This order was issued in the name of the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers companyferred by R. 6 6 of the Rules, and it directed that the Governor of Punjab was pleased to reinstate respondent No.
2 then passed the impugned order on July 4, 1962.
2 against whose appellate decision the appellant purports to have preferred the present appeal is number a tribunal under Art.
Respondent No.
On receiving numberice of the said appeal, the appellant filed its written statement and disputed the validity of the grievance made by respondent No.
It is this dismissal which led to the action by the appellant against the watch companymittee for a declaration that his dismissal was illegal, ultra vires and void, and payment of salary from March 7, 1958, or, alternatively, payment of pension from that date and damages.
Respondent No.
On February 28, 1958, he was acquitted by the jury on the criminal charges against him.
On March 6, 1958, on a charge alleging companyruption against the appellant Donovan, J. who tried the case, referred to the boroughs police force and remarked on its need for a leader who will be a new influence and who will set a different example from that which has lately obtained.
2 as the appellate authority under R. 6 6 of the Rules.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
That is how the question which arose for decision was whether the watch companymittee acting under s.191 4 had to act judicially.
C. Setalvad, J. B. DadachanJi, 0.
At the hearing of this appeal, a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Goyal on behalf of respondent No.
136 1 of the Constitution.
1 that special leave should number have been granted to the appellant, because the appeal is incompetent inasmuch as respondent No.
1 was number prepared to go to Kymore Works, and after long and protracted companyrespondence between the parties, the appellant wrote to him on September 26, 1961, that since he had number proceeded to Kymore on transfer as directed, he had ceased to be in the employment of the appellant, and his name had been struck off from the Companys roll.
was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR C. J. BACHAWAT J. delivered a separate Opinion.
It appears that the appellant transferred respondent No.
Respondent No.
1 as Labour Welfare Officer in the service of the appellant.
The appellant appealed to the Home Secretary, but his appeal was dismissed on the ground that there was sufficient material on which the watch companymittee companyld properly exercise their power of dismissal under s. 191 4 .
C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants.
After his acquittal, the appellant applied to be reinstated, but on March 7, 1958, the watch companymittee at a meeting decided that he had been negligent in the discharge of his duties as chief companystable, and, in purported exercise of the powers companyferred on them by s. 191 4 of the Act of 1882, dismissed him from that office.
On October 28, 1957, he was suspended from duty by the borough watch companymittee.
Under the provisions of the Factories Act, 1948 No.
2, the State of Punjab, exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Rule 6 6 of the Punjab Welfare Officers Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1952 hereinafter called the Rules is a Tribunal within the meaning of Art.
44 of 1964.
Gopal Singh and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
1 from Bhupendra Cement Works to Kymore Works which is near Katni in Madhya Pradesh, but apparently, respondent No.
Gajendragadkar, C. J. The principal point of law which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether respondent No.
The Judgment of GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J., M. HIDAYATULLAH, SHAH and SIKRI JJ.
2 on July 4, 1962 under the provision of the said Rule, directing the appellant to reinstate its Welfare Officer, P. N. Sharma respondent No.
P. Goyal, for respondent No.
The appellant, the Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Bhupendra Cement Works, Surajpur, challenges the validity of the appellate order passed by respondent No.
63 of 1948 hereinafter called the Act read with the provisions of the Rules, the appellant was required to appoint one Welfare Officer and to numberify his appointment and qualification to the Chief Inspector of Factories.
He was working at these Works until September 26, 1961, when his services were terminated.
One such Cement Works is the Bhupendra Cement Works, Surajpur within the territorial limits of respondent No.
The appellant is a companypany with its Head Office in Bombay and it runs 14 cement factories, 2 companylieries and one fire brick works in 8 States of the Union of India.
On June 26, 1960, he was posted at the Bhupendra Cement Works.
Respondent No.
