The Nagpur Electric Light And Power Co,
Ltd. & Ors V. K. Shreepathirao [1958] INSC 40 (11 April 1958)
DAS, S.K.
BOSE, VIVIAN DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) AIYYAR,
T.L. VENKATARAMA GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.
CITATION: 1958 AIR 658 1959 SCR 463
ACT:
Termination of Service-Company
Employee-Standing Orders -Construction-Employees and workmen-Distinction.
HEADNOTE:
The services of the respondent, an employee
of the appellant company, were terminated in accordance with the Standing
Orders of the company, approved by the appropriate authorities under the
provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and the
Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947. Standing
Order NO. 2(a) defined " employees " as " all persons ...
employed in the Office or Mains Department or Stores or Power House or
Receiving Station of the Company ... whose names and ticket numbers are
included in the departmental musters ". The Standing Orders also defined
the term " workman " and provided that every workman should have a
ticket. No ticket had been issued to the respondent by the company, and
consequently his ticket number was not included in the departmental muster. The
respondent challenged the validity of the order terminating his services by an
application made before the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution on
the grounds, inter alia, that the Standing Orders in question were confined to
those employees only to whom tickets were issued, and that as no ticket was
issued to him he was not an employee within the meaning of the Standing Orders
which did not therefore apply to him and, consequently, the termination of his
services under Standing Order No. 16(1) was illegal:
Held, (1) that the words " whose names
and ticket numbers are included in the departmental musters " occurring in
Standing Order NO. 2 (a) should be read as " whose names and ticket
numbers, if any, are included in the departmental musters ";
Cortis v. The Kent Water Works Company (1827)
7 B. & C. 314;
108 E. R. 741 and Perumal Goundan v. The
Thirumalarayapuram jananukoola Dhanasekhara Sangha Nidhi, (1918) I.L.R. 4I Mad.
624, applied.
(2)that under the Standing Orders, in which a
distinction is made between 'employees' and 'workmen', while every workman must
have a ticket, there may be employees who may have no tickets the possession of
which is not an essential characteristic of an employee; and, (3)that the
Standing Orders apply to all employees for whose benefit they have been made.
464 Accordingly, the Standing Orders were
applicable to the respondent and the termination of his service in accordance
with Standing Order No. 16(1) was valid and, therefore, the application made by
him to the High Court must fail.
CIA, IL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No.5 of 1958.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and
order dated September 26, 1956, of the former Nagpur High Court in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 66 of 1956, arising out of the judgment and order dated April
14, 1956, of the said High Court in Misc. Petition No. 6 of 1956.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General of India, B.
Sen, D. B. Padhya and I. N. Shroff, for the appellants.
R. V. S. Mani, for the respondent.
1958. April II. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by S.K. DAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave. The appellants
before us are the Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred
to as the Company), a public limited company having its registered office at
Nagpur in Madhya Pradesh, its Manager, and Assistant Manager. The respondent,
Shreepathi Rao, joined the service of the Company as a typist on a salary of
Rs. 30 per month in July, 1936. He rose in rank from time to time and was
appointed Deputy Head Clerk in 1947 in the grade of Rs. 120-10-225.
Since 1952 he has been receiving a basic
salary of Rs. 245 per month. On November 28, 1955, an explanation was called
for from him with regard to the issue of certain bills to consumers of
electricity called ".high tension consumers ", without having certain
" notes for the information of consumers " printed at the back of the
bills. The respondent submitted his explanation on the next day, marking a copy
thereof to one of the directors of the Company. On December 2,1955, he was
again asked to explain why he marked a copy of his explanation to one of the
directors. The respondent submitted an explanation in respect of this matter also.
On the same date, he was again asked to explain as to how and why certain
" double adjustments " had been made in the accounts of 1954 relating
to the consumers' department of the Company, the allegation being that a sum of
Rs. 1,05,894-7-7 which represented the amount of bills of the Central Railway
had been deducted twice in the accounts. The respondent submitted an
explanation on December 3, 1955, in which he said that the charge was vague and
that, after 1949, he was not in any way concerned with the preparation of
summaries and annual statements of accounts of the consumers department. On
December 5, 1955, an order of suspension was made against the respondent which
stated that the order was to take immediate effect and to remain in force until
further orders, pending some investigation against the respondent. Two days
later, on December 7, 1955, a memorandum was served on the respondent
terminating his services with effect from January 31,1956. The memorandum, so
far as it is relevant for our purpose, read- We hereby give you notice under
Standing Order 16(1) that your services will stand terminated as from 31st
January, 1956.
The Company's Managing Director is satisfied
that it is not in the interests of the business of the Company to disclose
reasons' for terminating your services." On December 19, 1955, a notice
was served on the Company on behalf of the respondent wherein it was stated
that the order of suspension dated December 5, 1955, and the order of
termination dated December 7, 1955, were illegal and ultra vires and a request
was made to withdraw the said orders and reinstate the respondent within 24
hours, failing which the respondent said that he would take legal action in the
matter. On December 26, 1955, the Company sent a reply to the notice denying
the allegations, and the company further stated that it had no desire to enter
into a discussion with the respondent as to the propriety of the orders passed.
On January 2, 1956, the respondent filed a
petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court 466 at Nagpur in
which he prayed for the issue of appropriate writs or directions quashing the
orders of suspension and termination dated December 5, 1955, and December 7,
1955, respectively and asking for certain other reliefs. This petition was
heard by a learned single Judge on certain preliminary objections raised by the
present appellants, and, by an order dated April 14, 1956, he upheld the
preliminary objections and dismissed the petition. The preliminary objections
taken were these: it was urged that the service of the respondent was
terminated in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Company, approved by
the relevant authorities under the provisions of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (XX of 1946), hereinafter referred to as the
central Act, and also under the provisions of the Central Provinces and Berar
Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 (C. P. and Berar Act XXlll of 1947),
hereinafter called the local Act; and if the respondent had any grievance
against the said Standing Orders, his only remedy was to get the Standing
Orders amended as provided for in the relevant Act, but he had no right to move
the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders
passed against him or for reinstatement, etc. Alternatively, it was urged that
if the Standing Orders did not apply in the case of the respondent as was the
respondent's case, then the Ordinary law of master and servant applied, and the
only remedy of the respondent was to sue the Company in damages for wrongful
dismissal. On these preliminary objections the learned Judge held (1) that the
respondent was not an employee within the meaning of the Standing Orders and
therefore his case was not governed by the Standing Orders;
(2) that the relationship between the
appellants and the respondent was contractual and not statutory and the remedy
of the respondent was to sue the Company in damages for wrongful dismissal; and
(3) as for amendment of the Standing Orders so as to include the respondent and
persons in his category, the only remedy open to the respondent was to take
action under the relevant Act by approaching a recognised union to move in the
matter.
467 On the dismissal of his petition, the
respondent preferred an appeal under el. 10 of the Letters Patent. This appeal
was heard and allowed by a Division Bench on September 26, 1956, on the
findings that (1) the Standing Orders did not apply to the respondent, though
he was an employee within the meaning of that expression in s. 2 (1) of the
local Act ; (2) the conditions of the respondent's service were governed by the
provisions of the local Act and on a breach thereof, the respondent had a right
to move the High Court for appropriate orders under Art. 226 of the
Constitution;
and (3) as the termination of the service of
the respondent was without statutory authority, it must be vacated. The
Division Bench accordingly allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of suspension
and termination of service and declared that the respondent continued to bean
employee of the Company on terms which were applicable to him on the date of
his suspension, namely, December 5, 1955. There was also a direction to the
Company to pay back wages to the respondent.
The appellants herein then moved this Court
and obtained special leave to appeal from the order of the Division Bench,
dated September 26, 1956. The present appeal has been brought in pursuance of
the order granting special leave to the appellants.
The first and foremost question which arises for
decision in this appeal is whether the Standing Orders of the Company apply to
the respondent. We have already stated-and it is not in dispute--that the
Standing Orders were approved by the certifying officer under the provisions of
the central Act and by the Labour Commissioner under s. 30 of the local Act. It
is necessary to explain here the general scheme of the provisions of the two
Acts under which the Standing Orders were approved. Under the central Act, the
expression " Standing Orders " means rules relating to matters set
out in the Schedule, and s. 3 requires that within six months from the date on
which the central Act becomes applicable to an industrial establishment the
employer shall submit to the certifying officer five copies of the draft Standing
Orders proposed by him 468 for adoption in his industrial establishment.
Sub-section (2) of s. 3 lays down that provision shall be made in such draft
for every matter set out in the Schedule which may be applicable to the
industrial establishment and where model Standing Orders have been prescribed,
the draft shall so far as practicable, in conformity with such model. The
Schedule refers to the matters which are to he provided by Standing Orders, and
item 8 of the Schedule relates to " termination of employment, and the
notice thereof to be given by employer and workman We may state here that the
central Act contains a definition of " workman " which, at the
material time in this case, meant any person employed in any industrial
establishment to do any skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical, labour for
hire or reward, but did not include any member of the armed forces. Sections 4
to 10 of the central Act deal with (a) conditions for certification of Standing
Orders, (b) certification of Standing Orders, (e) appeals, (d) date of
operation of Standing Orders, (e) register of Standing Orders, (f) posting of
Standing Orders and (g) duration and modification of Standing Orders. There are
similar provisions in the local Act,Chapter IV of which deals with Standing
Orders.Sub-section (1) of s. 30 of the local Act lays down-- Every employer, in
respect of any industry to which this Act has been made applicable under
subsection (3) of section 1, shall, within two months of the (late of such
notification, submit to the Labour Commissioner for approval, in such manner as
may be prescribed, a copy of the Standing Orders concerning the relations
between him and his employees with regard to all industrial matters mentioned
in Schedule 1. " Item 8 of Schedule I of the local Act is again "
termination of employment, notice to be given by employer and employee ".
The other sub-sections of s. 30 lay down the procedure to be followed for the
approval of Standing Orders by the Labour Commissioner, appeal by an aggrieved
person, etc.
Sections 31 and 32 lay down the procedure for
an amendment of the Standing Orders either at the instance of the employer or
at the 469 instance of a representative of employees. It is worthy of note that
sub-s. (1) of s. 30 requires every employer to submit to the Labour
Commissioner a copy of the Standing Orders concerning the relations between him
and his employees with regard to all industrial matters mentioned in Schedule
1. The local Act defines the expression " employee " and, at the
relevant time, it meant any person employed by an employer to do any skilled or
unskilled, manual or clerical work for contract or hire or reward in any
industry. It is worthy of note that the definition of " employee " in
the local Act corresponds more or less to the definition of " workman
" under the central Act. There are some minor differences in the
definition of the two expres- sions in the two Acts, but with those differences
we are not concerned in the present case.
The Standing Orders with which we are
concerned in the present case came into force on November 14, 1951, and it is
convenient at this stage to refer to the relevant Standing Orders. Standing
Order no. 2 defines certain expressions used in the Standing Orders. It states-
In these Orders, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context
(a) " employees " means all persons, male or female, employed in the
Office or Mains Department or Stores or Power House or Receiving Station of the
Company, either at Nagpur or at Wardha whose names and ticket numbers are
included in the departmental musters.
(b) " The Manager " means the
person appointed as such and includes the Assistant Manager and in relation to
Wardha establishment " the Resident Engineer ".
(c) " Ticket " includes a Card, pass
or token.
(d) " Workman " means such
categories of employees as may from time to time be declared to be "
Workman " by the Management ".
Standing Order no. 3 classifies employees
into certain categories and Standing Order no. 4 deals with tickets. In substance,
it says that every workman, permanent 6 470 or temporary, shall have a ticket
or card, and an apprentice shall have an apprentice card; the tickets or cards
issued shall be surrendered when the workman is discharged or ceases to belong
to the class of employment for which the card or ticket is issued. It is to be
noticed that under the definition clause " workman " means such
categories of employees as may from time to time be declared, to be workmen by
the management and Standing Order no. 4 makes it clear that every workman,
permanent or temporary, will have a ticket. Standing Order no. 16 deals with
termination of employment, and cl. (1) thereof, relevant for our purpose, must
be quoted in full- " For terminating the employment of a permanent employee,
a notice in writing shall be given either by the employer or the employee,
giving one calendar month's notice. The reasons for the termination of the
services will be communicated to the employee in writing, if he so desires at
the time of discharge, unless such a communication, in the opinion of the
Management, may directly or indirectly lay the company and the Management or
the person signing the communication open to criminal or civil proceedings at
the instance of the employee, or the Company's Managing Director is satisfied
that it is not in the interests of the business of the Company to disclose the
reasons and so orders in writing. " Now, it is not in dispute that the
respondent is a 'workman' within the meaning of the Central Act and an 'employee'
as defined in the local Act. The. controversy before us is as to whether he is
an employee' within the meaning of the Standing Orders. Admittedly, no ticket
has been issued to the respondent by the Company; his ticket number cannot,
therefore, be included in the departmental muster. The learned Judges of the
High Court held that the inclusion of the name and ticket number in the
departmental muster was an essential characteristic of an ' employee' as
defined for the purpose of the Standing Orders, and the mere fact of employment
in the Office, Mains Department, Stores, Power House or Receiving Station of
the Company was not enough to make a, 471 person so employed an 'employee'
within the meaning of the Standing Orders, and as the respondent did not fulfill
the necessary condition of having his name and ticket number included in the
departmental' muster, he was not an 'employee' as defined for the Standing
Orders, which did not therefore apply to him. On behalf of the appellants, it
is contended that regard being had to the context and the entire body of the
Standing Orders, the aforesaid view of the High Court is not correct, and on a
proper construction, inclusion of the name and ticket number in the
departmental muster is not an essential characteristic of an 'employee' as
defined for the Standing Orders. It is rightly pointed out that if the
possession of a ticket and a ticket number is taken as an essential
characteristic of an ' employee', then there is hardly any difference between
an 'employee' and a 'workman' as defined in the Standing Orders; because a
'workmen' means such categories of employees as may from time to time be
declared to be workmen, and under Standing Order no. 4 all workmen must have
tickets. If a person em- ployed by the company must have a ticket before he can
be an employee, and if workmen are such categories of employees as have
tickets, the distinction between the two disappears and. it is difficult to
understand why two definitions were necessary.
On a consideration, however, of' the subject
or context of the Standing Orders, read in their entirety and in harmony with
one another, it becomes at once clear why two definitions are necessary and
what is the distinction between the two classes-, employees ' and ' workmen'-in
the landing Orders. The expression ' employee' denotes a larger group-namely,
all persons, male or females who are employed in the Office, Mains Department,
Stores, Power House, or Receiving Station of the Company, either at Nagpur or
Wardha. 'Workmen' denotes a smaller group, viz., such categories of employees
as have been declared to be workmen, and who must have a ticket. Such a
distinction is clearly intelligible in an industrial establishment, where for
security and other reasons a system of tickets or passes is necessary for those
who 472 work in the Power House or Mains Department or other places where
essential machinery is installed while others, such as the clerical staff, may
work in an office building where security demands are either nonexistent or
much less insistent. This distinction means that all 'workmen' are 'employees',
but all ` employees' are not 'workmen' for the purpose of the Standing Orders,
and the inclusion of ticket numbers in the departmental musters will be
applicable to those employees only to whom tickets have been issued; but such
inclusion is not an essential characteristic of an employee.
Let us now see if such a distinction is
consistent with the Standing Orders as a whole. Standing Order no. 3, which
classifies employees, defines a probationer in cl. (c) and says that a
probationer means an employee who is appointed in a clear vacancy on probation
for a period not exceeding twelve months, etc. Standing Order no. 4 does not
require the issue of a ticket to a probationer; yet a probationer is an
employee. It is thus obvious that the Standing Orders do make a distinction
between `employees' and ` workmen', and there may also be employees who have no
tickets. Some of the Standing Orders apply to workmen only, e. g., Standing Orders
12, 13, 14 and 15. Other Standing Orders apply to all employees, whether they
are workmen or not. Standing Order no. 16 falls in the latter category ; it
applies to all employees.
Standing Order no. 8 (b), we think, makes the
position still more clear. It says- " Any employee, who after marking his
attendance or presenting his ticket, card, or token, as the case may be, is
found absent from his proper place of work during working hours without
permission or without any sufficient reason, shall be liable to be treated as
absent for the period of his absence." If every employee has to have a
ticket, it is difficult to understand why this Standing Order should make a
distinction between an employee who marks his attendance and another who
presents his ticket, card or token. Such a distinction is easily understandable
when some employees do not possess a ticket, card or token, 473 so that they
merely mark their attendance; while those who possess a ticket, card or token
present it.
It has been suggested that Standing Order no.
4 is not exhaustive in the matter of issue of tickets; it talks of an issue of
a ticket to every permanent workman, a card to every badli workman, a temporary
ticket to every temporary workman, and an apprentice card to every apprentice.
It does not prescribe the issue of a pass or token, though the definition of a
'ticket' includes a pass or token. The suggestion further is that Standing
Order no. 2 (a) itself authorises the issue of tickets to other employees, so
that there may be one kind of tickets issued to workmen under standing Order
no. 4 and another kind of tickets to other employees under Standing Order no. 2
(a). On this view, it, is suggested that the alternatives mentioned in Standing
Order no. 8 (b) really amount to an option given to an employee either to mark
his attendance or present his ticket. It is, however, difficult to understand
the necessity of an option of this kind when every employee must have a ticket,
particularly when the exercise of such an option is likely to defeat the very
purpose for which tickets are issued in an industrial establishment. We do not,
however, think that the case of the respondent is in any way strengthened by
holding that Standing Order no. 2 (a) itself authorises the issue of tickets to
employees other than workmen. Even on that construction, the failure of the
Company to issue tickets under Standing Order no. 2 (a) will not deprive the
employees of their real status as employees and of the benefit of the Standing
Orders. The direction for the issue of tickets will, in that view of the
Standing Order, be an enabling provision only and not an essential
characteristic of an employee. Further, Standing Order no. 4 provides for the
surrender of tickets issued there under but Standing Order no. 2 (a), if it is
construed as enabling the Company to issue tickets, makes no provision for the
surrender of tickets when the employee ceases to be an employee. This absence
of any provision for surrender applicable to such tickets 474 clearly implies
that issue of tickets is not contemplated by the Standing Order no. 2 (a)
itself.
On behalf of the respondent, however, the
main argument has been of a different character. It has been argued that there
need not be one set of Standing Orders for all employees, and the Standing
Orders in question being confined to those employees to whom tickets had been
issued, the respondent who had no ticket was outside their purview, and the
result was that the Company had committed a breach of the statutory provision
in s. 30 of the local Act in the sense that no Standing Orders had been made in
respect of the respondent and employees like him to whom tickets had not been
issued. It hag been argued that, therefore, no action could be taken against
the respondent either under the Standing Orders or even under the ordinary law
of master and servant. We are unable to accept this argument as correct. We
have pointed out that the Standing Orders themselves make a distinction between
'employees' and `work- men', and there may also be employees who have no
tickets.
To hold that the Standing Orders apply to
those employees only to whom tickets have been issued will make employees
synonymous with workmen-a result negatived by two separate definitions given in
Standing Order no. 2. The central Act as well as the local Act contemplate the
making of Standing Orders for all employees in respect of matters which are
required to be dealt with by Standing Orders. The Standing Orders in question
were not objected to as being defective or incomplete by workmen, and they have
been approved by the appropriate authority and they must be construed with
reference to their subject or context. In the absence of compelling reasons to
the contrary, it should be held that they apply to all employees for whose
benefit they have been made. We see no compelling reasons for holding that the
Standing Orders do not apply to the respondent. In our view, and having regard
to the subject or context of the Standing Orders, the words whose names and
ticket numbers are included in the departmental musters " in Standing
Order no. 2 (a) do 475 not lay down any essential characteristic of employee
and are applicable only in cases where tickets have been issued to an employee.
The essential content of the definition of an employee is employment in the
Office, Mains Department, eta., of the Company either at Nagpur or Wardha, and
that of a workman the necessary declaration by the Company which would entitle
him to a ticket under Standing Order no. 4.
There is also another relevant consideration
which must be borne in mind in construing the Standing Orders in question.
Section 30 of the local Act imposes a
statutory obligation on the employer to make, Standing Orders in respect of all
his employees and a breach of the statutory obligation involves a criminal
liability. That being so, the court would be justified, if it can reasonably do
so, to construe the Standing Orders so as to make them consistent with the
compliance of the said statutory obligation.
We are not unmindful of the principle that in
construing a statutory provision or rule, every word occurring therein must be
given its proper meaning and weight. The necessity of such an interpretation is
all the more important in a definition clause. But even a definition clause
must derive its meaning from the context or subject. In Courts v. The Kent
Waterworks Company (1), the question for consideration was the interpretation
of the appeal clause in an Act for Paving, Cleansing, Lighting, etc., of the
Town and Parish of Woolwich (47 Geo. III, Sess. 2, cap. CXI). By the 16th
section of the statute, " the commissioners are to make rates upon all and
every the person or persons who do or shall hold, occupy, possess, etc., any
land within the parish ". The statute also gave a right of appeal to any
person or persons aggrieved by any rate., but the appeal clause required the
person or persons appealing against a rate to enter into a recognisance; the
question was if this requirement was intended to exclude corporations from the
purview of the ap. peal clause, as corporations, it was urged, cannot enter,
into a recognisance. In interpreting the appeal clause, Bayley J. observed- (1)
(1827) 7 B. & C. 314; 108 E. R, 741.
476 "But assuming that they cannot enter
into a recognizance, yet if they ire persons capable of being aggrieved by and
appealing against a rate, I should say that that part of the clause which gives
the appeal applies to all persons capable of appealing, and that the other part
of the clause which requires a recognizance to be entered into applies only to
those persons who are capable of entering into a recognizance, but is
inapplicable to those who are not." The same principle of interpretation
was applied in Perumal Goundan v. The Thirumalarayapuram Jananukoola Dhanasekhara
Sangha Nidhi (1), in construing the Explanation to O. XXXIII, r. 1, of the Code
of Civil Procedure, which says inter alia that " a person is a
pauper............ when he is not entitled to property worth one hundred rupees
other than his necessary wearing apparel and the subject matter of the suit
". The question was if the aforesaid provision applied to companies. It
was held that it would be wrong to construe the provision to mean that only
persons who possess wearing apparel can sue as paupers. We are of the view that
the same rule of construction should apply in the present case, and the words
" whose names and ticket numbers are included in the depart. mental
musters " occurring in Standing Order no. 2(a) should be read as " whose
names and ticket numbers, if any, are included in the departmental musters
" and should apply in the case of those employees only who possess tickets
and whose ticket numbers are capable of being entered in departmental musters;
they are not intended to exclude employees who do not possess tickets or to
whom tickets have not been issued and consequently whose names only are so
entered.
The learned Judges of the High Court were
influenced by the circumstance that in an earlier- case D. C. Dungore v. S. S. Dandige
Miscellaneous Petition No. 134 of 1954 decided by the same High Court on
September 23, 1955) the Company took tip the stand that the Standing Orders
applied to employees to Whom tickets had been issued-a stand different from and
inconsistent with that taken in the present case, (1) (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad.
624.
477 It may be pointed out, however, that 1).
C. Dungore of the earlier case was not an employee within the meaning of the
relevant Act, and there could be no Standing Orders in respect of his
conditions of service. Moreover, in the matter of construction of a statutory
provision no question of estoppel arises, and the learned Judges had pointed
out that the respondent himself thought that the Standing Orders applied to all
employees. We have rested our decision as to the applicability of the Standing
Orders not on what the appellants or the respondent thought at one time or
another, but on a true construction of the Standing Orders themselves,
including the definition clause in Standing Order no. 2(a).
We take the view that the Standing Orders
apply to the respondent. This is really decisive of the appeal, because if the
Standing Orders apply to the respondent and his service has been terminated in
accordance with Standing Order no. 16(1), the writ application which the
respondent made to the High Court must fail.
The learned Attorney-General appearing for
the appellants addressed us on the scope and ambit of Art. 226 of the
Constitution, and he contended that even if the respondent had been wrongfully
dismissed by his private employer, the proper remedy was by mean,,; of a suit
and not by invoking the special writ jurisdiction of the High Court. These
contentions raise important questions, but we do not think that we are called
upon to decide them in this case.
Lastly, it has been urged oil behalf of the
respondent that even if we hold that the Standing Orders apply to the
respondent, we should remand the case to the High Court for a decision on
merits of other points raised by the respondent, because the question whether
the Standing Orders apply or not was treated as a preliminary issue by the High
Court and no decision was given on other points. We asked learned Advocate for
the respondent what other points remain for decision oil his writ application,
once it is held that the Standing Orders apply to the respondent and 6 478 his
service has been terminated in accordance with Standing Order no. 16(1).
Learned Advocate then referred us to Standing Order no. 18, which provides for
penalties for misconduct, and submitted that the provisions thereof have not
been complied with by the appellants. He particularly referred to cl. (e) of
Standing Order no. 18 and submitted that the order of suspension passed against
the respondent was in violation of the safeguards mentioned therein. The short
answer to this argument is that no penalty for mis-conduct has been imposed on
the respondent under Standing Order no. 18. The Company paid his salary to the
respondent from the date of suspension to January 31, 1956, which also showed
that no order was passed by way of punishment for misconduct. The Company chose
to terminate the service of the respondent in accordance with Standing Order
no. 16, and did not think fit to proceed against the respondent for any alleged
misconduct, and it was open to the Company to do so.
So far as Standing Order no 16. is concerned,
all the requirements thereof have been complied with. That being the position,
no other point remains for decision in the present case.
The result, therefore, is that the appeal
succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court dated
September 26, 1956, are set aside and the writ petition of the respondent is
dismissed. In view of the stand which the appellants had taken in the earlier
case with regard to the Standing Orders, we think it proper to say in this case
that the parties must bear their own costs throughout.
Appeal allowed.
Back
