K.C. JOSHI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 3 S.C.R. 869 · Decided: 23-04-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

869 
.K.C. JOSHI 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
April 23, 1985 
[D,A. DESAI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India 1950, Ariic/es 12,14,16 310 and 3/1: 
Oil and Natural Gas Commission-Whether ·an instrumentality of the State 
-Whether amenable to writ juri.fdiction-Employees of corporation-Whether entf .. 
tied to protect/oil of equality in 1narters of public e111ploy1nent. 
Labour Law: 
Employee elnployed on 'regular basis until further orders'-Services of 
employee-Whether could be ter1ninated by one month's notice. 
Income Tax Act 1961, Section 89 and Income Tax Rules, Rule 21A: 
Emp/oyee-TerminaJion order set aside-Awarded back wages and c_,on1pen-
sation in lieu ofreinstate1nent-Re/ief of incon1e tax-Entitle1nent of.. 
The appellant was .initially appointed in the -Respondent·Public Sector 
Undertaking as an Assistant Store Keeper and la~cr selected as a Store Keeper. 
The office orde_r recited that the appellant had been appointed as Store Keeper 
till further orders, that his appointment was purely temporary, that he will be 
on probation for period of 6 months, and that the appointment m'.ly be termi-
nated_at any time by a month's notice. On successful completion of the proba-
tion period of six months·, the appe11ant was informed that 'he was continued in 
service on a regular basis until further orders.' The appellant wa~ later transfer-
red. aad the Transfer Order was challenged by him in a suit, and he obtained an 
interim order restraining the undertaking from implementing the transfer order. 
The E~p!oyees' Union 'sub1nitted a charter of demands and it was folio· 
wed by a notice threatening direct action by the members of the Union. The 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
appellant was an a1;tive worker of the union, The Employees went on strike, and 
ff 
A 
B 
c 
D 
870 
WPREMP. COURT REPORTS 
(1985] 3 S.C.R. 
the Union submitted a list of work1nen to the CorpJration requesting the Corpo-
ration to give them the statu'i of protected workn1en as required by section 33(4) 
of the Industrial Di5putcs Act, 1947. The Appellant's name app~:tred at S.No. 
2 in the letter. By an Office Order the service~ of the app.:llant wi~re terminated 
with immediate effect in accordance with the term<> and conditions of the 
service, and a cheque for one month's pay in lieu of notice accompanied 'the 
order. 
The appellant challenged the legality and validity of the order termina-
ting his service in a Writ Petition and a Division Bench of the High Court 
dismissed the Petition. It held t'hat though on successful completion of the 
probation period, the appellant had been appointed on a regular basis as Store 
Keeper, he was non-the-Jess a te1nporary employee of the Corporation till the 
date on which his services were terminated. The Corporation was not an 
Industrial Establishment within the n1eaning of the expression in the Industrial 
Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and therefore the Model Standing Or-
dersenacted under the Act were not applicable to the CorpOration. The Oi.der of 
termination of service was not violalive of the Oil and Natural Gas Commission 
(Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1964 as the service of the appel-
lant was not dispensed with on the allegation of misconduct, but it was an order 
of termination of service sirnpliciter in accordance with Regulation 25. 
As the 
service of the appellant 'vere tenninatcd not because of any personal bias of the 
officers of the Corporation, but because of his unsatisfactory work, the allegation 
of mala tides cannot be upheld. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
E 
1-IELD : l. The judgment of the J-Iigh Court is quJshed and set aside 
and the rule is made absolute in the writ petition. The Oil and Natural Gas 
Cornmission is directed to pay Rs.2 lakhs to the appellant in lieu of back wages 
and compensation in lieu of reinstatement within a period of four weeks. Tht: 
appellant is entitled to relief under section 89, Income Tax Act, 1961 read with. 
Rnle 21 A of the Jn:::ome Tax Rulc1, be.::ause the compensation awarded include 
salary wl1ich had been in arrear for 18 y~ars a'> also the compensation in lieu 
F 
of reinstatement [878H, 879A, E-GJ 
G 
Q 
2. If the appellant was appointed on regular basis, his service cannot be 
terminated hy one month's notice, If it was by way of punishment, as the High 
Court has found it to be so, termination is violative of the principles of natural 
justice in that no opportunity was giv.::n to the appdlant 

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