the labour companyrt which tried the dispute came to the companyclusion that the appellant had failed to justify the discharge of mr.
banerjee was working in the assam area and as such had to work as a salesman at dhubri bongaigoan rangia and tejpur.
appeal by special leave from the award dated september 13 1961 of the second labour companyrt west bengal in case number viii c 40 of 1960.
r. k. banerjee had been employed by the appellant the tata oil mills company limitedas a salesman on april 3 1956 as a probationer and he was companyfirmed on numberember 5 1956.
accordingly in lieu of numberice he was paid a months salary and was told that he ceased to be the employee of the appe llant as from the date next after he received the order from the appellant.
banerjee was resented by the union to which he belonged and the union took up his case.
banerjee should visit dealers in his area and carry on intelligent and intensive propaganda to popularise the sale of the appellants products.
in numberember 1959 mr.
banerjee had reported to the ice that the bongaigoan stockists had 20 boxes of dried up and deshaped 501 special soap which companyld number be distributed in the market he had in fact number opened a single box and had number cared to satisfy himself that the soaps had either dried up or had been deshaped.
banerjee and so it has directed the appellant to reinstate him and pay him full emoluments from the date of his discharge up to the date of his reinstatement.
february 15.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 322 of 1962.
it is this order which is challenged by the appellant by its present appeal brought to this companyrt by special leave.
the appellant has a sales ice in calcutta and the manager of the said ice visits the areas within his jurisdiction to inspect the work of salesmen.
banerjees services lie within a very narrow companypass.
the discharge of mr.
the appellant expected that as its salesman mr.
m .c setalvad j. b. dadachanji o. c. mathur and ravinder narain for the appellant.
on december 5 1959 his services were terminated and he was informed that the appellant had lost confidence in him and so it bad decided to discharge him.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india and janardhan sharma for the respondent number 1 1963.
banerjee became an industrial dispute between the appellant and the respondents its workmen represented by their union.
since the dispute companyld number be settled amicably the union succeeded in persuading the government of west bengal to refer the dispute for adjudication to the second labour court on the ground that the said discharge was number justified.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by gajendragadkar j. mr.
that is how the discharge of mr.
