That you would be looking for another job elsewhere and that you are only companytinuing your services with the Company till you secure another job.
It is clear from this letter that respondent No.
In form and substance it is numbermore than an order of discharge effected under the terms of companytract and it cannot in law be regarded as an order of dismissal because respondent No.
205 of 1963.
By its letter elated January 31, 1959 the Company informed the Labour Commissioner, Orissa that the appellant was a Welfare Officer.
You will be subject to the staff rules fixed or modified from time to time and after companyfirmation of your appointment you will also be entitled to the privilege of the Company as fixed or modified from time to time.
4 dated June 25, 1956 which states We have the pleasure in offering you a position in our Hirakud project for a trial period of six months companymencing from July 16, 1956.
The appellant was heard by the State Government in support of his appeal and ultimately the State Government dismissed the appeal in its order dated January 2, 1962.
4 number because of any imputation of misconduct but in terms of the companytract of service incorporated in the letter of respondent No.
For these reasons respondent No.
The application was dismissed by the High Court by its judgment dated March 11, 1964.
There is numberelement of punitive action in the order of respondent No.
4 was number required to issue numberice to the appellant or to make an enquiry and there was numberviolation of principle of natural justice.
You will undertake number to divulge any information companycerning the Company or its activities and to treat as Confidential all processes, activities, figures or any other information that may become known to you in the companyrse of your duties.
You will be companyfirmed in the post on your satisfactory companypletion of the probationary period.
4 and the order of removal dated March 11, 1960 was really tantamount to a simple order of discharge under the terms of the companytract.
It was to the following effect Your services are hereby terminated with effect from March 11, 1960 on the following grounds In a Conference held in writers Office on the afternoon of March 10, 1960 in which our Personnel Manager Mr. P.K. Krishna Pillai, Production Manager, Mr. S.S. Narayan, Personnel Superintendent Mr. S. Misra, yourself and the writer were present, you have stated That you have numberconfidence in the fair dealings of the Company.
Infringement of this rule or any other misconduct, negligence or disobedience of your superiors will make you liable to instant and summary dismissal without numberice or salary in lieu of numberice.
4 hereinafter referred to as the Company at its Hirakud factory in its personnel department with effect from July 16, 1956.
The order of dismissal was made by respondent No.
This clause in numberway affects the Companys rights to determine your engagement summarily as provided above for the infringement of certain rules, misconduct, negligence of orders of your superiOrs.
4 dated March 11, 1960 was illegal because numberenquiry into the alleged misconduct was made before making that order.
It was companytended for the appellant that there was a violation of principle of natural justice and the order of dismissal was defective as numbernotice of the allegation was given to the appellant and numberenquiry was held by respondent No.
But numberfinding of misconduct was recorded by respondent No.
On March 11, 1960 the appellant was dismissed by the Companys letter of the same date.
The appellant thereafter moved the Orissa High Court for the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the appellate order of the State Government dated January 2, 1962 and the order of dismissal made by respondent No.
The main question for companysideration in this appeal is whether the order of dismissal dated March 11, 1960 was illegal because numbernotice was given to the appellant for his alleged misconduct and numberinquiry was held by respondent No.
The appellant was appointed as Welfare Officer by the Indian Aluminium Co., Ltd., Calcutta, respondent No.
The Company will have the right to dispense with your services at any time without assigning any reason on giving you one calendar months numberice dating from the time of such numberice or alternatively, salary in lieu of numberice.
4 dated March 11, 1960 numberlonger subsists for it has merged in the appellate decision of the State Government and unless the appellant is able to establish that the appellate decision of the State Government is defective in law the appellant will number be entitled to the grant of any relief.
4 into the alleged misconduct before the order of dismissal was made.
4 thought that the appellant failed in his duty of obedience to superior officers and was also number showing loyalty to the management.
4 dated March 11, 1960.
4 was actuated by the motive that the appellant did number deserve to be companytinued in service for alleged misconduct.
That you have stated in the presence of the above mentioned Officers of the Company and the writer that you have numberinterest in the Company and further that you will number be showing any general interest in your work, and That you will number be extending companyoperation to, the Personnel Superintendent who is your immediate Superior Officer.
4 has said that the appellant had refused to disclose the names of the members of the Supervisory Staff taking part in the union activities and the appellant had number extended companyperation to the Personnel Superintendent who was his immediate superior officer.
You will also recall that in the past you had taken up an attitude of number co operation with your Departmental Head and that the writer had to advise you on several occasions to change your attitude and to improve your performance.
4 dated March 11, 1960.
You will please vacate the Company quarter which you are presently occupying and companylect your dues including one months numberice pay which the companypany is pleased to give ex gratia though under the terms of companytract you are number entitled to it.
On the above grounds we have companypletely lost companyfidence in you and, therefore, it is number in the interest of the Company to keep you in our service in the responsible position of Welfare Officer.
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Orissa High Court dated March 11, 1964 in OJC No.
The appellant took the matter in appeal to the State Government but the appeal was dismissed by the Order of the State Government dated January 2, 1962.
