Her appointment was subsequently companyfirmed on September 1, 1955, on terms and companyditions which were companymunicated to her and which she accepted.
Miss Scott then resigned her service from M s. Burmah Shell and joined the appellant as a regular employee in October, 1954.
At the time when her services were terminated Miss Scott used to receive the total remuneration of Rs.
The other findings recorded by the tribunal against the appellant have number been challenged in the present appeal.
The direction for the payment of bonus is number challenged by the appellant but the validity of the order asking the appellant to reinstate Miss Scott and to pay her the whole of the back wages during the relevant period is questioned before us, and so the main point which calls for our decision is whether the appellant was justified in terminating the services of Miss Scott, and if number, whether in the circumstances of this case it would be appropriate to direct an order of reinstatement ?
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated September 18, 1957, of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, in 1.
A claim for bonus for the years 1955 and 1956 was also made on her behalf.
On February 28, 1957, the services of Miss Scott were terminated by Mr. Gowan and she was told that the faults pointed out to her had number been companyrected and that her performance during her service had number matched up to the standard required.
On March 13, 1957, Miss Scott made a representation to the Conciliation Officer, New Delhi, against the termination of her services, and it is out of the proceeding. ,
In September, 1954, the appellant set up its own office at New Delhi and then offered Miss Scott direct employment on the same terms and companyditions that governed her employment with M s. Burmah Shell.
One of the terms was that the appointment in question may be terminated on one months numberice on either side.
It was urged by the appellant that the dispute was an individual dispute and as such the reference was incompetent.
The union of the appellants workmen which sponsored her case alleged before the tribunal that the termination of Miss Scotts services was wrongful and illegal and she was entitled to reinstatement.
The appellant companypany is chiefly engaged in searching for and refining crude oil and it has a refinery at Digboi in Assam.
It is on these findings that the tribunal has passed an order of reinstatement.
Her services were lent to the Delhi representative of the appellant companypany sometime in January, 1954.
N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor General of India, Vidya Sagar and B. N. Ghosh, for the appellant.
It was alleged that Miss Scott was number a workman under s. 2 s of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act , and so the tribunal had numberjurisdiction to deal with the dispute.
During the companyrse of her employment Miss Scott did number give satisfaction to the appellant and on many occasions she was verbally warned to improve her work and number to repeat her lapses.
The industrial tribunal has directed the appellant to reinstate Miss Scott and to pay her all the back wages from the date of her dismissal until the date of her reinstatement.
On February 26, 1957, Mr. Gowan, the Delhi representative of the appellant, warned Miss Scott in writing about her lapses and added that he did number companysider her work satisfactory.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
24 of 1959.
On the merits the appellants case was that it had purported to terminate the services of Miss Scott in terms of the companytract after paying her one months wages in lieu of numberice, and that the industrial tribunal would number be justified in interfering with such an order.
535 per month.
April 4.
He told her to strive to improve her work and mend matters failing which he would have to companysider whether she was suitable to companytinue in the appellants employment.
The appellant resisted this claim.
The respondent alleged that the said termination of Miss Scotts services was illegal and that was one of the points referred to the Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi, for its adjudication.
taken by the Conciliation Officer on this representation that the present dispute ultimately came to be referred to the industrial tribunal for adjudication.
The other point of dispute between the parties was in regard to the quantum and companyditions of the payment of bonus for the year 1955 56 to the appellants workmen.
3 of 1957.
Frank Anthony and Janardan Sharma, for the respondents.
D. No.
It was urged on her behalf that numberenquiry was held by the appellant before terminating Miss Scotts services and that made the impugned termination illegal and unjustified.
Miss Scott was given one months pay in lieu of numberice and she accepted it.
The dispute was in regard to the termination of services of Miss P. Scott, one of the employees of the appellant.
Miss Scott was originally in the employment of M s. Burmah Shell, New Delhi, as a lady secretary.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This appeal by special leave arises from an industrial dispute between the appellant, Assam Oil Company Ltd., and the respondent, its workmen.
