LexJABALPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. versus SAMBHU PRASAD SRIVASTAVA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
SBPREME COURT REPORTS 45§ JABALPUR ELECTRIC SUPPLY 00. v. SAMBHU PRASAD SRIVASTAVA & OTHERS (P. B~ GAJEND~AGADKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and ' J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) Industrial Company-Delegation of Disciplinary powers to officer-Valilrlity-Stanrling Orders els. 19, 20. The appellant company had its Head Office in Calcutta . but generated electricity for distribution at ] abalpur. By cl. 10 of the power of attorney executed· by it, it authorised its Resident Engineer at Jabalpur, "subject to the Standing Orders from time to time given by the Company to appoint, dismiss, suspend or terminate the services of any of the employees of the Comyany at. Jabalpur". The respondent was charge-sheeted and after enquiry discharged by the Resident Engineer. He made an application to the Assistant Labour Commissioner who ordered his reinstatement without break in his service by without payment of back wages. The State Industrial Court, on revision applications by both the parties held that the Resident Engineer was not empowered to hold the enquiry and to issue an order of discharge and refused to interfere. Both the parties moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The High Court took the view that · · the powers of dismissal and suspension under cl. 19 of the Standing Orders and the general right to discharge an employee under cl. 20 of the Standing Orders could not be, and latter powers had not actually been, delegated to the Resident Engineer and allowed the respondent's appllication with back wages. Held, that the delegation of power by the power of attorney was vailed in law and covered powers both under cl. 19 and cl. 20 of the Standing Orders. There was nothing in law or in the Articles of the Asso• ciation of the Company that forbade such delegation and the company therefore, could, delegate the powers to meet the exigencies of its business. The opening words of cl. 10 of the power of attorney did not mean. that the delegate could not at all exercise:the powers since under the Standing Orders the company alone 1911 - 1002 Jaba lpur Electric 'Supp!J Co. v. Sambku Prasad Srioas1ava LasGuptaJ. 454 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] could do so. Their effect. is that in exercising these powers the delegate cannot do anything that the'cblnpany could not do under the Standing orders. CIVIL APPELLATE JurusmcTION: Civil Appeal No; 432 of 1961. Appeal by special leave form the judgment and order dated May 15 1959 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misoellaneous Petition Nos. 301 of 1958 and 83 of 1959. B. Sen and S. N. Mukerji for the Appellant. B. R. L. Iyengar and A. a: Raf/!Wparkhi for Respondent No. 1. I. N. Shroff, for Respondents Nos. 2 and 4. 1962. July 27. The Judgment of the Court was delivererd by · DAS GUPTA, J.-Wben under the Standing Orders of a Company the Company is empowered to take disciplinary action against axi employee by pro· ceeding in the prescribed· nianner can that'p?wer be legally delegated by .~he Company, to'• any of its officers ? That is the principal question raised in this appeal. ' • The appellant is 11, Company ··incorporated under the Indian Companies Act having its regis· tered office at 12, Mission Row, Ca!Ctitta. It is engaged in the generation an_d · ,distribution of electricity at Jabalpur. ' The Company's 'office at Jabalpur is in charge of a"ReBident'Engmeer. By a power of attorney given by the:appellant company on June 26, 1957, Mr. Leonard Shell Mli.c]eod, 'the Company's Resident Engineer . at ''Jab'li.lpur;"·was appointed "the company's tru~" and lawful attorney for and fu the name of the Company to db exer· _.._, cise and perform all or any of the ·acts; matters, 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORT$ 455 discretions and things" set out in II clauses. The 10th clause provided that "subject to the Standing Orders from time to time given by the Company to appoint, dismiss, suspend or terminate the services of any of the employees of the Company at Jabalpur." On November 12, 1957, the respon- dent Sambhu Prasad Srivastava was served with a. charge sheet -under the signature of Mr. Macleod in which it was alleged that he had substituted 13 coils of V,I.R. cable in the stores of the Company ·for the same quantity of cable of various makes • from the local market, Sambhu Srivastava.'s reply - to this charge was that when the shortage of 13 coils ca.me to his notice on the eve of ·the1 audit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.