HECKETT ENGINEERING CO. versus WORKMEN

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 11-10-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.L. UNTWALIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

HECKETT ENGINEERING CO. 
v. 
WORKMEN 
October 11, 1977 
[N. L. UNTWALIA AND lASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
693 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section IO-General Clauses Act, 1897-
.Section l6-Disn1issal by a person lower tllan the appointing authority-Stand· 
ing Orders-Construction of. 
The respondent workman was appointed a permanent driver by the appellant 
employer. The respondent while driving the truck of the appellant·company met 
with an accident. The appellant called upon the respondent to show cause why 
disciplinary action should not be tciken against him for the following acts of 
misconduct : 
( 1) Due to rash and negligent driving of the truck, it was involved in 
a serious accident. 
(2) The respondent picked up 4 unauthorised passengers to travel in the 
truck. 
(3) The respondent allowed one of the unauthorised passengers to drive 
the truck. 
A 
B 
c 
( 4) Respondent suppressed true facts in his report of accident submitted 
D 
to the appellant and gave a false statement. 
The respondent submitted his explanation which was found to be unsatis-
factory. 
Thereafter the domestic enquiry \\'as held. 
In the domestic enquiry 
lt was found that all the 4 charges were established against the workman. On 
receipt of report of the domestic enquiry the Plant Manager passed an order 
dismissing the respondent. 
After the conciliation failed the Government of 
West Bengal referred the question "whether the dismissal was justified ?", under 
s. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 
The Tribunal on consideration of the 
E 
evidence Came to the conclusion that the appell.ant had been able to establish 
·charges No. 2 and 3. 
The Tribunal, however, set aside the order of dismissal 
·on the ground that it had not been passed by the authorised person observing 
that the appointment order of the respondent showed that the Qeneral Manager 
was the appointing authority and that it was signed by the Plant Manager acting 
·on behalf of the Gene·ral Manager. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, 
HELD: (I) The finding of the Tribunal that the Plant Manager of the 
F 
Company had no authority to pass the impugned 
order cannot be sustained. 
Under the standing orders appointment of permanent workmen could have been 
made by the Plant Manager. it was the Plant Manager who actually passed the 
appointment order. 
Although, in the printed .appointment order where General 
Manager is mentioned the word 'General' was not deleted, a glance at 
the 
appointment order shows that the Plant Manager did not sign on behalf of the 
'General Manager. There is nothing on the record to indicate that on the rele-
vant date the General Manager of the company was away on leave or was 
otherwise absent and the Plant Manager was deputed to officiate or act for or 
G 
on behalf of the General Manager. The Plant Manager has categorically affirm-
ed that he has been holding the office of the Plant Manager for 10 vears. 
[697 F-H, G98 A'-B] 
(2) The standing order 32 which is declaratory of the over-all power of the 
companv does not put any fetter on the power of the Plant Manager to dismiss 
1he workman whose appointment made by him if he is guilty of a misconduct. 
[699 A-Bl 
( 3) Whether or not section 16 of the General Clauses Act 1897. in terms. 
H 
applies to standing order No. 32 of the company which is certified under s. 5(3) 
of the Industrial Emplo:vn1ent Standing Orders Act 1946 is a moot point but 
1he general doctrine underlying the said sec. 16 can well be made applicable 
I : I 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978) ! S.C.R. 
A 
to. a case of the present natu~e, for the power to terminate service is necessary 
_ _.; 
ad1unct of the power of appointment and is exercised as an incident to or con-
\ 
B 
c 
D 
sequence of that power. 
Jn the present case appointment was made by the Plant Manager and the 
power of appointment implies and carries with it the power of dismissal. 
The 
order of disn1issal does not suffer from any infirmity. [699 D--G] 
Lckliraj Satra111das Lalvani v Deputy Custodiati.cuni-:\-1anaging Officer & 
(Jr.\. [1968] 1 SC·R 120 and Kuroor Ven,!!ayil Ravarappari Nayanar v. Kutoor, 
Vc11gayil ilfadhavi Amina <.~ Ors. [1949} FCR 667, relied on. 
Hindustan Brown Bo1'l'ri Ltd. v. Their Wor!.:111en & Anr. [1968] (I) 
LLJ 
571 distinguished. 
[The court left open to the \'i'Orkman, if so advised, to approach the com-
pany for substitution of the order of discharge with benefits of past 
service for the impugned order of dismissal.] 
CI

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.