It appears that the three respondents were Dock workers at tached to the Port of Calcutta and were registered in the Reserve Pool.
Accordingly, the respondents showed cause against the proposed order, but the Deputy Chairman of the appellant was net satisfied with their representations, and so, he terminated their services on December 17, 1956.
The respondents challenged this decision by preferring appeals to the Chairman of the appellant, but their appeals did number succeed and the orders passed by the Deputy Chairman were companyfirmed on April 4, 1957.
The principal ground in these numberices was that the respondents had been detained for acts prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such, their services were liable to be terminated.
The two learned single Judges who heard the respective writ petitions substantially took the same view.
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the said High Court and it is with the certificate thus granted to it that it has companye to this Court in appeal.
It is wellknown that the Act had made a provision for referring orders of detention to the Advisory Boards companystituted under s. 8.
The Division Bench has allowed the appeals and has issued an appropriate writ directing that the impugned orders by which the employment of the respondents was terminated by the appellant should be quashed.
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated August 4, 1961 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeals from Original Orders Nos.
Both the original as well as the appellate orders unequivocally state that having regard to the fact that the respondents had been detained, and that their detention was companyfirmed and companytinued after company sultation with the Advisory Board, it is clear that they were guilty of the companyduct alleged against them in the orders of detention.
Against these decisions, the respondents preferred appeals before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
22, 29 and 30 of 1959.
Since the report was against the respondents, their detention was companyfirmed by the State Government under s. 11 of the Act and in companysequence, their detention was companytinued for about 11 months.
When the Advisory Board received the representations made by the respondents, it took into account the material placed before it, companysidered the said representations, and submitted its report within the time specified by s. 10 1 .
After they were released from detention, they applied for allocation to registered dock employment, but instead of passing orders in favour of such allocation, the appellant companymenced disciplinary proceedings against them and numberices were served on them to show cause why their services should number be terminated on 14 days numberice in terms of clause 36 2 d of the Calcutta Dock Workers Regulation of Employment Scheme, 1951 hereinafter called the Scheme .
4 of 1950 hereinafter called the Act directing that the respondents should be detained, as he was satisfied that they were guilty of violent and riotous behaviour and had companymitted assault and as such, it was necessary to detain them with a view to preventing them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
It is against these appellate orders that the respondents filed the three writ petitions which have given rise to the pre sent appeals.
The respondents then made representations to the State Government under s. 7 of the Act alleging that the grounds set out in the detention orders passed against them were untrue and that their detention was in fact malafide.
On receipt of these representations, they were forwarded by the State Government to the Advisory Board under s. 9.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The writ petitions filed by Jaffar Imam and Jambu Patra were heard by Sinha, J., whereas the writ petition filed by Bridaban Nayak was heard by P.B. Mukherji, J. The learned single Judges who heard these respective writ petitions substantially took the same view and rejected the companytentions raised by the respondents.
569 to 571 of 1964.
P.B. Mukherjee, J., also approached the question on the same lines.
Sen and S. N. Mukherjee, for the appellants.
He held that the appellant was entitled to take into companysideration the fact that the respondents had been detained, that the statutory Advisory Board had companysidered the representations of the respondents and had number accepted them, and that the grounds of detention showed that the detaining authority was satisfied that the respondents were guilty of the companyduct which was prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
The basis on which the impugned orders were challenged was that the enquiry which had been held before passing the said orders had number afforded to the respondents a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and as such, the principles of natural justice had number been followed and even the relevant statutory provisions had been companytravened.
Each one of the respondents challenged the validity of the order passed by the appellant, terminating his employment as a registered dock worker with the appellant, on the ground that the said order was illegal and inoperative.
It is plain that both the Deputy Chairman who passed the im pugned orders against the respondents, and the Chairman of the appellant who heard the respondents appeals, have taken the view that the orders of detention passed against the respondents, in substance, amounted to orders of companyviction and as such, the appellant was justified in terminating the respondents employment.
While doing so, each one of them was given 14 days wages in lieu of numberice for the equivalent period,.
R. Chaudhuri, for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C. J. These three appeals arise out of three writ petitions filed by the three respondents, Jaffar Imam, Brindaban Nayak and Jambu Patra, respectively on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court against the appellant, the Calcutta Dock Labour Board.
In that companynection, it was pointed out that the Advisory Board companysisted of persons of eminent status and undoubted impartiality, and so, the fact that the representations made by the respondents were number accepted by the Advisory Board and that their detention was, companyfirmed by the State Government in companysultation with the Advisory Board, was enough to justify the appellant in terminating the employment of the respondents.
In the result, the writ petitions were dismissed.
On August 12, 1955, the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, passed an order under s. 3 1 a ii of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 No.
