The Appellant Company had also appointed by an agreement M s. Hari Bhagat Laxmi Bhagat at Kathmandu as its wholesalers.
The charge sheet called upon the respondent to show cause why for the aforesaid gross misconduct companymitted by you, you should number be dismissed from service or otherwise suitably dealt with.
11,000/ was false.
But it was said that thereafter the respondent became irregular in remitting the sale proceeds and that numberwithstanding his assurances to regularise his work he did number do so.
taking personal loans from the wholesalers, 2.
6,400/ on 2 10 1960 and Rs.
The last allegation is obviously an inference from the alleged acts 1 and 2 , and number an independent act of misconduct.
An enquiry into the said charges was duly held thereafter wherein the respondent admittedly was given an opportunity of being heard and to lead such evidence as he desired.
Whether the credit sales effected by the wholesalers were companytrary to their agreement with the companypany?
4,600/ on 3 12 1960.
and further the enquiry officer had given his findings on those matters which were number the subject matter of the charges.
The said agreement provided that the wholesalers would have to deposit with the Company a sum of Rs.
On December 27, 1960, the respondent intimated to the Company that the said receipts were extorted from him by the wholesalers, and that pending instructions from the Company he was filing a criminal companyplaint against them.
The Labour Court with the companysent of the parties admitted the evidence recorded at the domestic enquiry as substantive evidence and also recorded certain other evidence led by the parties, and ultimately found 1 that the domestic enquiry was properly held, 2 that the companypanys companytention that it had jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the domestic enquiry only, if it was proved that there was want of good faith or victimisation or unfair labour practice or that the enquiry officer had companymitted any basic error or violated the principles of natural justice or that his findings were baseless or perverse was wrong, and that under Section 26 2 and 5 it companyld record evidence and companye to its own findings irrespective of the findings of the domestic enquiry, 3 that the respondents companytention that the wholesalers extorted from him on December 8, 1960, the said two receipts bearing dates October 3, 1960 and December 2, 1960 was right, 4 that the denial by the respondent of having taken any loan from the whole?
6 that by executing the said two receipts he had made it appear as if the said monies were part of the monies given to him for remittance, thus enabling the wholesalers to allege that they had hand ed them over for remittance and were numberlonger liable to the companypany for them.
Aggrieved by the order of discharge, the respondent filed a companyplaint in the Labour Court, Patna under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops Establishment Act, 1953 in which he pleaded inter alia a that there was numberreasonable cause for dispensing with his services, b that he was number guilty of any misconduct, c that he had number entered into personal transactions with the wholesalers, and d that the officers of the companypany in companylusion with the wholesalers, and to save their gross negligence, took statements from the petitioner under threat and undue influence.
Whether they were with companysent and knowledge of the companypanys officers at Patna, and Whether the companypanys said officers for fear that they might be taken to task by the Head Office for permitting such credit sales got the respondent to admit in various letters that the said two sums were advanced to him as personal loans?
11,000/ made up of Rs.
It may be mentioned that it was number the Companys case that the respondent had embezzled the Companys monies, its case all throughout being that the monies for which the respondent was said to have executed the said bonds and the said receipts were number the Companys monies but were for loans advanced by the wholesalers.
It was admitted before us that the Appellant Company has number framed any rules of companyduct for its servants and further that there was numberrule forbidding a Companys employee from entering into personal transactions such as loans.
No difficulty appears to have been experienced by the Company by this arrangement until the middle of 1960.
You deny the receipt of this money from the wholesalers and in fact it appears that you have filed a criminal companyplaint against the wholesaler for alleged extortion of certain receipts from you.
On December 6, 1960, the Company received a telegram from the wholesalers that there was cash shortage of Rs.
In the absence of any such rule, it is prima facie difficult to say how a loan or its denial companyld be said to be acts of misconduct.
By such companyduct and behavior you have brought down the reputation of the Company at Kathmandu and therefore, you have companymitted a gross misconduct prejudicial to the interest of the Company.
20,000/ , that they would be paid companymission at 3 on all sale proceeds in respect of sales effected by them, that out of the stock supplied to the wholesalers the Companys own salesman posted at Kathmandu would also be entitled to effect sales and that the sale proceeds in respect of sales effected by both of them should be remitted to 1969 S. C./63 XI G 6 the Company through its salesman.
At the end of the enquiry the enquiry officer gave the following findings 1 that between August to December 1960, the respondent was guilty of irregularities in his work, 2 that stocks were sold on credit and further that the respondent had failed to remit sale proceeds thereof, 3 that in spite of assurances given by him to be regular in future the respondent failed to live up to these assurances, 4 that during the time when the respondent was at Kathmandu the Companys business was low and that was due to his failure to inform the companypany of the market position there and his failure to obey instructions given to him by the officers at Patna Branch.
On December 28, 1960, the wholesalers also enclosed companyies of two receipts purported to have been executed by the respondent in respect of the said two amounts.
The Labour Court on these pleadings framed four questions for its companysideration Whether the said wholesalers had advanced to the respondent the said two sums?
6,400/ and Rs.
The enquiry officer companycluded his report by holding that the charge that the respondent had entered into personal transactions with the wholesalers taking advantage of his position was satisfactorily proved and that he had made abuse of the trust reposed in him by the companypany and by systematic irregular work and disobedience of the instructions of the companypany he had managed to keep everybody in the dark with a view to companyering his illegal activities.
On receipt of the telegram, one K. P. Sinha, the Branch Manager at Patna, went over to Kathmandu and made a preliminary enquiry in the companyrse of which it was said that the respondent admitted that he had taken personal loans from the wholesalers and had executed two loan bonds for Rs.
It is clear from the aforesaid findings that although the charge sheet alleged only two acts of misconduct on the part of the respondent, the enquiry officer ad allowed evidence to be led on several other matters outside the scope of the charge sheet such as the alleged irregularities on the part of the respondent prior to December 1960, his alleged disobedience of instructions given to him by the Patna Branch, his failure to live up to the assurances given by him etc.,
By an order dated September 20, 1961, the respondent was discharged from the companypanys service with immediate effect for the aforesaid items of misconduct companymitted by and proved against you.
On August 26, 1956 the Company sent the respondent to Kathmandu for promoting sales and for assisting the said wholesalers in their sales.
The result was that the Company sent one P. N. Saxena to Kathmandu and also a relief salesman, one K. B. Sinha, who on December 5, 1960, took over charge from the respondent.
7 that the letters of the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th December, 1960, were voluntarily written by the respondent to the Branch Manager, and 8 that it was possible that the said two receipts were extorted from the respondent.
In his reply to the said charge sheet, the respondent denied the said alleged transactions, his case, as aforesaid, being that the said bonds and the said receipts as also the said four letters written by him from the 7th to the 10th of December, 1960, were secured from him either under the influence of the Branch Manager or extorted from him under force and companyrcion by the wholesalers.
It is clear that the wholesalers had changed their case, their case first being that the said two amounts were advanced by way of loans to the respondent and later on stating that the said two amounts were given to the respondent for remittance but the respondent had failed to remit them and that therefore there was cash shortage of Rs.
denial by him of these loans and filing a criminal companyplaint against the wholesalers, and 3.
11,000/ by the respondent.
The Company thereafter served a charge sheet on the respondent alleging therein that he had abused the position of trust and responsibility as a Companys employee and brought down thereby its reputation and had companymitted the following acts of misconduct, namely You have given room for allegations to be made against you by the wholesalers Hari Bhagat Laxmi Bhagat with respect to transactions admittedly entered into by you in your personal capacity.
In reply to the said companyplaint the companypany alleged that after a careful enquiry and on the basis of evidence adduced thereat and the findings of the enquiry officer the companypany had companye to the companyclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the charges leveled against him, and had decided to discharge him from the service of the companypany instead of dismissing him which however would have been perfectly warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case and the charges established against the petitioner.
The report ended by stating that all the charges had been satisfactorily established by companyent evidence beyond any reasonable doubt.
5 that the respondent had taken loans on his personal account from the wholesalers for which he had executed the said two bonds.
The wholesaler alleges that he handed over to you Rs.
Further, by such irresponsible companyduct on your part you have also forfeited the companyfidence of the Company reposed on you.
The respondent was also said to have written on 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th December, 1960, letters to the said Branch Manager admitting that he had obtained the said loans from the wholesalers.
4,600/ .
11,000/ .
On December 9, 1960, the wholesalers wrote to the Company that they had paid the said two amounts to the respondent for remittance to the Company and asked the Company to send them the requisite credit vouchers therefore.
The respondent was appointed a salesman on August 19, 1954, by a letter of appointment, clause 9 whereof provided that either party companyld terminate the companytract of employment by a numberice of 28 days.
The respondents case, on the other hand, was that he had number taken any loans from the said wholesalers, that companytrary to the said agreement With the wholesalers, the Companys officers at Patna Branch companynived at credit sales effected by the wholesalers, that the wholesalers, on companying to know that on December 5, 1960 the respondent had handed over charge to a new salesman, got panicky and realising that they would number be able to recover the sale proceeds of the said credit sales, they and the said K. P. Sinha, the Branch Manager arranged between them to get the said loan bonds executed by the respondent, that the wholesalers thereafter also extorted under companyrcion the said two receipts, and that therefore the wholesalers version that there was cash shortage of Rs.
M. Shelat, J. This appeal, by special leave, is against the order by which the Labour Court, Patna, set aside the order of discharge from service passed by the Appellant Company against the respondent and which also directed his reinstatement.
It is clear that the facts of misconduct alleged against the respondent as his acts were 1.
