THE BUCKINGHAM AND CARNATIC CO. LTD. versus VENKATIAH AND ANR.

Citation: [1964] 4 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 02-08-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'i 
( 
4 S.C.R. 
SUPREME .COU!tT ·REPOR:fS 
265 
sense of "a reduction in rank" a~ distingnisheo from the 
termination'. of his employment ahd he fairly conceded that 
he ·could not point ~o any. 
We wo1!ld, therefore, ans-
wer the reference by saying that the word 'removable' 
in the reference means l'efil.Ovable from liis appoint-
ment in the >ense of terminatihg- J:is appointment and 
signifies the penalty numbered 6 in Rule. 3 of All fodia 
Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, '1955 where the ex-
pression is expanded to mean 'removal f~om. the servi$e 
,which shall not disqualify for future employment'. The 
·reference is answered accordingly. 
' 
THE BUCKINGHAM AND CARNATIC CO. LTD. 
ti. 
VENKATIAH AND ANR. 
,(P. B. GAJENDJ<AGAD:LU<, K. N. WANCHOO NND K. C. DAs 
GUPTA, JJ.) 
·.t 
lndustriil Dispute-Standing 'Orders-Terminati"on ~f Service-
Employee absent without leave-"Employer not to dismiss or punish 
employee during period of sickness"-Scope and effect of-Em-
ployees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), s. 73, sub-ss. (1) 
> -" 
and (2) and s. 85(d)....:Standing Orders No. 8 (ii) and 13(1)-
Regulations 53 lo 86. 
' 
The respondent Venkatiah yrent 
on~ leave for six 
d~_ys and 
did not join dllty on t~e expiry Of.the leave period but remained 
absent ·wiµiout sending, to tlle appellant any communication for 
extending his leave. 
Later, he sent a letter io the appellant ac-
companied by a medical certificate issued by a Civil Assistant Sur-
geon in respect of his illness for a period of nearly two months. The 
Me<iical Officer 
of 
.the appellant 
waS 
<Unable 
i to 
confirm 
that he was ailing for a period of two months. Finding the 
explanation for his absence unsatisfa.ctory the appellant refused 
to take him b:ick 
in 
its 
employm~nt: 
Mean\vhile he had 
applied to the Regioilal Director of the Employees' State InSu· 
ranCe Corporation and obtained caah sickness benefit for the period 
covere9 by the .. Medical 
Certificat~ issued by th!= Civil Assistant 
Surgeon. 
On the appellant's refusal to take him, back in its· em· 
ploymcnt, the respondent union, referred laj.1 case· for .. a·djudication 
18-2 s. c. !Rdia/61, 
1963 
R. P. Kapur 
v. 
Pr•tap Singh 
K~i·ron and 
others 
Ayyangar f. 
---
1963 
August 2 
1963 
The Buckin-
gham Co. 
v. 
Venkatiah 
and other; 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1964] 
to the Labour Court and the management of the appellant was 
directed to reinstate him. 
The appellant then moved a writ 
petition 
in the High Court and it was allowed by the learned 
single Judge. 
The respondent then preferred 
a 
Letters Patent 
Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal 
was allowed by the Division Bench and the award passed by the 
Labour Court was restored. In his appeal against the said decision 
the appellant's main contention in this Court was that the case 
of Venkatiah fell squarely within the provisions of Standing Order 
S(ii) and the High Court was wrong in holding that the decision 
of the appellant in refusing to condone th.e absence of Venkatiah 
was either unfair or improper, or that it contravened the provisions 
of s. 73 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948. 
The res-
pondent mainly contended that in the present case the employee 
receive.cl sickness benefit, and so, for the said sickness, no penalty 
could be imposed on him. 
Held: (i) Standing Order ~(ii) was applicable to the present 
case and the fact that the same. conduct was dealt with in t\VO 
different standing orders, could not 
affect 
the 
applicability of 
Standing Order S(ii) to the present case. 
(ii) Whether or not the appellant should have accepted the 
certificate of the Civil Assistant Surgeon was primarily for the 
appellant to consider; as. there was no allegation about n1alafides 
in this case, it was not open to the High Court, in exen;,ise of its 
writ jurisdiction, to consider the propriety of the conclusion reached 
by the Labour 'Court on this point. 
(iii) On a proper construction of s. 73(1) read with sub-s. (2,), 
it was impossible to invoke s. 73 against the appellant, because the 
termination of Venkatiah's services had not taken place during the 
period of his illness for which he received sickness benefit; the 
High Court was not justified in taking the view that the termina-
tion of Venkatiah's services under S.O. S(ii) contravened the pro-
vision. of s. 73(1). 
(iv) The view taken by the Regional Director about the effect 
of the Civil Assistant Surgeon's certi

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