The State Industrial Court which was moved both by the Company and by the employee held that the order of discharge was in substance an order of dismissal, and that misconduct alleged was number proved, and that in any case the Resident Engineer was number empowered to hold an enquiry and to issue an order of discharge.
14, 18 19 and 20 of the Standing Orders had been violated.
Appeal by special leave form the judgment and order dated May 15 1959 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Miscellaneous Petition Nos.
Both parties then moved the Madhya Pradesh High Court for relief under Art.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner made an order on September 10, 1958, ordering reinstatement of the respondent without break in his service but without payment of back wages.
301 of 1958 and 83 of 1959.
It refused to interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and rejected both the revisional applications.
An enquiry was then held by the Resident Engineer and ultimately on January 16, 1958, the Resident Engineer issued a letter to him in these terms With reference to charge sheet dated 12th November, 1957, and the subsequent investigations in the case against you,, please numbere that the matter has been very carefully companysidered, and in accordance with the interview which you had with our Chief Engineer, Mr. J. W. Fawcett, on the morning of the 15 th January, 1958, we hereby numberify you that the Company does number find it possible to.
Srivastava then applied to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur, alleging that this order was in companytravention of the provision of the C. P. Berar Industrial Tribunal Settlement Act and of the Standing Orders as the powers of the Company under the Standing Orders to hold the enquiry can be exercised only the Managing Director.
Therefore, you are hereby discharged from the service of the Company, with immediate effect.
2 and 4.
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Sen and S. N. Mukerji for the Appellant.
retain yo ur services.
The Companys office at Jabalpur is in charge of a Resident Engineer.
It was also alleged that the order though in from an order for discharge was really an order of dismissal and that cls.
The 10 th clause provided that subject to the Standing Orders from time to time given by the Company to appoint, dismiss, suspend or terminate the services of any of the employees of the Company at Jabalpur.
The Judgment of the Court was delivererd by DAS GUPTA, J. When under the Standing Orders of a Company the Company is empowered to take disciplinary action against an employee by proceeding in the prescribed manner can that power be legally delegated by the Company to any of its officers ?
N. Shroff, for Respondents Nos.
By a power of attorney given by the appellant companypany on June 26, 1957, Mr. Leonard Shell Macleod, the Companys Resident Engineer at Jabalpur, was appointed the companypanys true and lawful attorney for and in the name of the Company to do exercise and perform all or any of the acts, matters, discretions and things set out in 11 clauses.
432 of 1961.
July 27.
Please call at the Companys office on the 17th instant,to receive final settlement of your dues from the Company.
The appellant is Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at 12, Mission Row, Calcutta.
R. L. Iyengar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi for Respondent No.
On November 12, 1957, the respon dent Sambhu Prasad Srivastava was served with a charge sheet under the signature of Mr. Macleod in which it was alleged that he had substituted 13 companyls of V.I.R. cable in the stores of the Company for the same quantity of cable of various makes from the local market, Sambhu Srivastavas reply to this charge was that when the shortage of 13 companyls came to his numberice on the eve of the audit he remonstrated with his subordinates who actually handled these articles and that what he did was done in the best interests of the Company and that he never acted with any dishonest intention.
It is engaged in the generation and distribution of electricity at Jabalpur.
That is the principal question raised in this appeal.
