MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY versus P. S. MALVENKAR AND ORS.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 1000 · Decided: 05-05-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1000 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY 
v. 
P. S. MALVENKAR AND ORS. 
May 5, 1978 
[P. N. BIIAGWATI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.] 
Tern1ination of 3ervice-Co1npetent authority puts the initials in the draft 
order arul tfie order co1111111111icated by his Executive Assistant, lVhether valid. 
Industrial E1nployn1en1 (Standing Orders) Order, 1946 S. 21(2), 23 and 26, 
scope vf. 
The services of Respondent No. 2, a permanent clerk in 
the 
Bombay. 
Electric Supply and Trails port Undertaking, which is run by the appellant were 
terminated from the close of work on January 23, 1968 as her 
record 
of 
service was unsatisfactory. 
The communication dated January 20, 1968 was 
from the Executive Assistant to the (ieneral Manager and it also stated that 
she should be paid one month's wages in lieu of notice and would also be 
eligible for all the benefits as might be admissible under the Standing Orders 
and Service Regulations of the Undertaking. 
The appeal pr1?:ferred 
by 
her 
against this order to the Assistant General Manager having 
remained 
un-
successful she made an application before the Labour Court under Section -42 
( 4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act contending that the order termi-
nating her services was invalid, as it was not passed by the competent authority 
as envisaged by the Standing Order and that the so called Executive A'lsistant 
to the General Manager had no authority to terminate her services 
because 
no validity sanctioned Post of that designation existed on 20th or 23rd January, 
1968. 
It was also contended that the aforesaid order besides being ma/a fide. 
was violative of the principles of n<itural justice in as much as the same was 
passed without holding any enquiry. The Labour Court dismissed the appli-
cation. The respondent's appeal before the President of the Industrial Court 
was however allowed. 
The Industrial Court held that 1he impugned orders 
bore only the initials of the General Manager and therefore it was passed by 
an authority which was lacking in authority, the 
wording 
''unsatisfactory 
service record'' cast a stigma and was patently punitive attracting the 
non-
observance of Standing Order No. 26 which did not create an absolute right 
in the management to terminate the services of an employee for misconduct 
without holding an enquiry or giving her a fair opportunity of being heard. 
A Writ application filed by the appellant was dismissed holding inter alia that 
the fact that Standing Order 26 required reasons to be mentioned in the order 
terminating the services of an emtiloyee did not mean that an order of dis-
missal on the ground of misconduct could be converted into an order ot 
discharge simpliciter by mentioning therein the nature of misconduct. 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court 
HELD : 1. Whether a written document or order bea.rs full signatures or only 
initials of the competent authority does not, 01ake any significant difference 
nor does the affixation of signature by initials on a document or order detract 
from its authenticity unless the law or the rule 
specifically 
requires 
full 
signature to be affixed thereto to make it authentic. 
[1005 ElF] 
~n the ins~ant case : 
(~) the _impunged order terminating the respondent's 
services was in fact and in reality passed by the General Manager himself 
who was the competent authori~ as defined by clause 
(e) 
of 
Standing 
Order 3 and wa~ me~elJ; comm1;1n1cated by his Executive Assistant to the res-
pondent; 
(b) since 1t ts established on the record that the impugned order 
• 
-
• 
.. 
-
t 
-
-
• 
'~ • 
0BOMBAY CORPORATION V. MALVENKAR 
1001 
.was in fact .and in reality n1ade by the General Manager and there is nothing 
:to indicate that it was not consciously made by him, it could not have been 
•quashed on the ground 
that 
it 
was 
passed by 
an 
incompetent 
autho~ 
rity. 
[1005 C, G-HJ 
2. ·rhe question whether a particular order terminating the service of an 
.employee is by way of punishment or not has to be determined on the facts 
.and circumstances of each case and the form of the order is not decisive of the 
matter. i I 006 BJ 
Under Standing Orders, two po\vers are given to the management; one is 
..the power to impose punishn1ent for misconduct after a disciplinary. inquiry 
.under clause (2) of the Standing Order 21 read with Standing Order 23 and 
-the other is the power to terminate the service of an en1ployee 
by 
one 
,,.(). calenda

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