The Labour Court had, therefore, number jurisdiction to direct the companyporation to reinstate him or to pay companypensation, 2 That respondent 3 was engaged hi clerical work and was, therefore, number a workman as defined by the Act, 3 That the termination of the, services of respondent 3 was in companyformity with the terms of the companytract of service, and there was, therefore, numberquestion of the principles of natural justice being applicable to such termination.
In support of the writ petition three questions.
The High Court rejected all the three companytentions, refused to quash the order of the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant companyporation had failed to establish that there was any error of law apparent on the face of the record.
The Labour Court ,relied on a letter dated January 30, 1960 addressed by the appellant companyporation, to the said companyciliation officer that the services of respondent 3 had been terminated because in the companyrse of certain enquiries the Rajya Transport Department had found that Shri Sheo Prasad Sinha had companymitted various irre gularities of the various nature in the discharge of his duties.
No evidence was led by the appellant companyporation before the Labour Court either to prove the said irregularities or to establish that the said order was justified.
The Labour Court held that the said alleged irregularities amounted to misconduct as defined by the said standing orders, and that therefore, the services of respondent 3 companyld number be terminated on the ground of those irregularities without holding a disciplinary enquiry and giving to, respondent 3 therein an opportunity of being heard.
The numberification issued under s. 3 inter alia stated that The said Corporation shall, with effect from the said date, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions which are at present being exercised and performed by the Rajya Transport, Bihar.
On April 2.0, 1959, the State Government, in exercise of the power companyferred by S. 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 64 of 1950, set up as from May 1, 1959, the appellant companyporation.
In the meantime the question of the termination of services of respondent 3 was espoused by respondent 4 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner.
The companyciliation proceedings having failed, the State Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court by an order dated February 24, 1961, The Labour Court found a That respondent 3 was a workman within the definition of that term in the Industrial Disputes Act and the Standing Orders governing the appellant companyporation, and that though appointed a head clerk,, there was numberevidence to show that his, work as such head clerk was managerial or supervisory, b That the order dated February 18, 1959 terminating the services of respondent 3 was number termination of service simpliciter, but was punitive in nature.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 17, 1965 of the Patna High Court in Misc.
No, such enquiry having admittedly been held, the Labour Court held that the said order was not justified as it was number in bona fide exercise of the power to terminate the services of respondent 3.
217 of 1962.
Sarjoo Prasad, R. P. Srivastava, Saranjit Singh Jauhar and K. K. Sinha, for the appellant.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
By an order dated February 18, 1959, issued by the State Transport Commissioner, Rajya Transport, he was discharged from service with immediate effect.
Judicial Case No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat J. This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the High Court of Patna dismissing a writ petition under Arts.
were raised before the High Court 1 That the services of respondent 3 were terminated before the appellant companyporation was set up, and companysequently, the remedy of respondent 3 was against the State Government and number against the companyporation.
Goburdhun, for respondent No.
1065 of 1966.
The said Authority appointed respondent 3 as a Head Clerk in the office of the Divisional Manager, Rajya Transport, Bhagalpur, as from July 27, 1956 The order appointing him stated that the appointment was purely temporary and was terminable without numberice and without assigning any reasons.
The reference arose from the following facts Prior to April 20, 1959 the Government of Bihar was companyducting through one of its departments, called the Rajya Transport Authority, an undertaking of road transport in the State.
226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the award passed by the Labour Court on a reference to it of an industrial dispute under s. 10 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The appellant companyporation thereupon filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the said award.
