He stated that the appellant was thoroughly satisfied, after full enquiry and investigation and after the respondent was given more than ample opportu nity to explain the charges levelled against him, and after he was given more than one chance at his own prayer to improve his companyduct on various occasions that the respondent was guilty of the charges brought against him.
The respondent had admitted having been rude to his superior officer in a fit of temper but appeared to be repentant of his companyduct and had tendered an apology to the Chief Cash ier.
He, therefore, asked to be excused and stated that he would take much more care in future about his work.
Unfortunately for the appellant, in spite of the work and companyduct of the respondent being demonstrably unsatisfactory and, therefore, justifying the companyclusion that he was un suitable to be retained in its service, the appellant did number hold any formal enquiry of the nature indicated above and did number afford to the respondent an opportunity to have his say in the matter of the charges levelled against him.
Following upon that report a letter was addressed by the appellant to the respondent on the same day intimating that the appellant had decided to give him one more chance of working in the organization on the distinct understanding that should there be any further adverse report about his work or companyduct his services would be terminated forthwith.
It was open to the appellant to submit a charge sheet to the re spondent and institute a formal inquiry into his work and companyduct.
The Manager also stated at the end of the said report that he had warned the respondent that if he got any further adverse report about his work or companyduct, his services would be terminated forthwith.
This affida vit evidence was followed by the oral evidence of Mr. Hooper led on behalf of the appellant.
This step became necessary as there was an appeal being No.
The appellant accordingly on November 11, 1955, wrote a letter to the respondent stating that the necessary permission had been granted by the Labour Appel late Tribunal to discharge him from the appellants service and that the decision of the Management of the appellant dated May 28, 1954, to terminate his services was therefore given effect to on the terms companymunicated to him in that letter.
In spite of these chances being given to him the respondent did number improve and he was again found seriously neglecting his work.
If that had been done and the appellant had, after holding such formal enquiry, companye to the companyclusion that the respondent was guilty of the charges which were levelled against him and had then decided to terminate his service, the Tribunal companyld number have intervened and on its companying to the companyclusion that a prima facie case for the termination of the service of the respondent was thus made out, it would.
The Labour Directorate of the Government of West Bengal was approached on his behalf but that body also refused to intervene.
He also submitted on November 29, 1949, a letter asking to be excused.
On December 6, 1955, the respondent filed an affidavit before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, praying for a review of the order dated October 14, 1955, for setting it aside and for restoration of the application under s. 22 of the Act.
He however admitted that he had occasionally talked with his companyworkers though he companytended that that was number in such a way as would prompt his companyorkers to companyplain against him.
He was directed on that under standing to report to Mr. Hooper of the M. E. Department, where he was being transferred with effect from the next day.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated May 11, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta, in Misc.
Re i It was companytended that once the Labour Appellate Tribunal pronounced its order on October 14, 1955, it had become functus officio and thereafter it had numberjurisdiction to review its own order.
There were also companyplaints from the typists to the effect that the respondents chatter interfered with their work.
The respondent had been appointed as a pay clerk in the appellants cash department on April 30.
The re spondent was granted an interview with the Manager of the appellant who investigated the case of the respondent and found him guilty of the charges framed against him.
The respondent replied by his letter dated February 16, 195 1, denying the allegations companytained in the said letter of Mr. Hooper He Pleaded that he was number negli gent in his duty inasmuch as he had to discharge the arrears of work which were out standing at the time when he took over the work of writing parcel challans and he was also asked to do other work of the clerks who were absent on leave.
On November 17, 1949, the Chief Cashier again company plained against the respondent stating that he had number only registered numberimprovement but was grossly negligent in his duties, in spite of repeated warnings, and was in the habit of absenting himself on flimsy grounds, and always tried to avoid duties that were entrusted to him and was very inso lent in his behaviour and companyduct.
On November 19, 1949, the respondent wrote a letter to the Managing Director of the appellant pleading number guilty to the charges framed against him and asking for an interview so that he may have a chance to represent his grievances personally.
The appellant being aggrieved by the said decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta applied for and obtained special leave to appeal to this Court.
Sen, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh, for the appel lants.
He further asked to be excused for the faults, if any, and gave an assurance that he was trying and would try his level best to improve further.
The facts as they appear from the narration of events in the earlier part of this judgment go to establish that the respondent was grossly negligent in 1 1953 S.C.R. 780 3 1956 S.C.R. 916.
The appellant thereafter filed on September 21, 1954, an application before the Fifth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal.
The Management thereupon asked for his written explanation which he submitted on October 28, 1949, stating that if there was anything wrong on his part that was due to his ill health, hard work and mental anxiety.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Under the circumstances, the manager of the appellant recommended in his report dated November 29, 1949, that the respondent be given one more opportunity to prove himself of good behaviour but having regard to the request made by the respondent in that behalf suggested that he be transferred to the Mechanical Engineering Department.
The appellant eventually filed an application under s. 22 of the Act before the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India at Calcutta for permission to discharge the respondent from its service.
Since the beginning of 1949, the respondent was found to have become negligent and careless in his work and he was also disobedient and slow in the performance of the duties that were allotted to him.
Consequently the Chief Cashier by his letter dated October 24, 1949, addressed to the Manager of the appellant, companyplained that he was very negligent and care less in his work, and habitually showed sulkiness, that he was also disobedient, and shirked the duties that were allotted to him an that recently, he was careless enough to keep the Companys money in an open drawer of a safe, and go home, without locking the same.
152 pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal to which the appellant and the respondent were parties.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal companysisting of Shri N. Gan President and Shri P. R. Mukherji Member heard the appellant ex parte and by its order dated October 14, 1955, allowed the said application and granted the permis sion to discharge the respondent holding inter alia that a prima facie case had been made out for permission to dismiss the respondent.
A charge sheet was submitted to him on November 18, 1949, and he was suspended till the final disposal of the enquiry.
C 152 of 1955.
by issu ing a charge sheet with specific allegations and on enquiry based on such a charge sheet and explanations rendered by him.
under s. 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for permission to discharge the respondent.
These allega tions were denied by the respondent in his affidavit in reply and he companytended that on numberoccasion whatever the warnings, letters, suspension or stoppage of increment resorted to by the appellant were done after establishing his guilt or by following the usual methods, viz.,
The Fifth Industrial Tribunal however became functus officio on the expiry of thirty days from the publication of its Award in the dispute which was then pending before it with the result that the said application companyld number be disposed of and was accordingly struck off.
Case No.
Repeated verbal and written I warnings were given to him but they had numbereffect whatever.
September 20.
92 of 1957.
The respondent protested against the stopping of his annual increment by his letter dated Febru ary 17, 1953, and companytended that the charges levelled against him were absolutely groundless and asked the Manage ment to re consider his case.
L. Sen Gupta with him Dipak Dutta Choudhri , for the respondent.
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by BHAGWATI J. This appeal with special leave against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcut ta, arises out of an application made by the appellant under s. 22 of the Industrial Disputes 66 Appellate Tribunal Act, 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act for permission to discharge the respondent.
The Management asked Mr. Hooper to report upon the respondents work and companyduct by May 31, 1953, and intimated to the respondent that unless definite improvement was reported by that date his services with the appellant would be terminated as from June 30, 1953.
1945, and had been company and had been companyfirmed in service with effect from August 1, 1945.
He companytended that the whole thing was arbitrary, without any basis and in violation of the principles of natural justice and was by way of unfair labour practice or victimization.
The Labour Appellate Tribunal presided over by Mr. M. N. Gan and Mr. V. N. Dikshitulu heard the parties companycerned and by its order dated March 6, 1956, allowed the respondents application and restored the appellants case to its file.
The respondent failed and neglected to send any reply with the result that by its letter dated June 21, 1954, the appellant intimated to the respondent that it was approaching the Tribunal for permission to terminate his service as per its letter dated May 28, 1954.
An affidavit in rejoinder was filed on behalf of the appellant by Shri Ramani Ranjan Dhar, a Senior Assistant of the appellant.
have granted the appellant the permission asked for.
He denied these allegations of the respondent and affirmed that the application of the appellant sufficiently disclosed the offences for which it sought the permission of the Labour Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the respondent.
This circumstance was companysidered by the Labour Appellate Tribunal as sufficient to entitle it to determine for itself whether a prima facie case for the termination of the respondents service was made out by the appellant.
