THE MANAGEMENT OF U.B. DUTT & CO. versus WORKMEN OF U.B. DUTT & CO

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 822 · Decided: 29-01-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

1962 
v. 
Stot.ofU. P. 
Rogllubar DaJol J, 
IHJ 
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [l9o2] SUPP. 
b.e said to have been absolutely without jurisdic-
t10n. We do not agree. 
He certainly had jurisdic-
tion to dispose of the applimtion presented to him, 
but when s. :l69, of the Code <ldinitcly pi ohiLited 
the Court's reviewiug or alteriug it8 judgment, he 
had no jurisdiction to con8ider the point raised and 
to set aside the order di8rnissi11g the appeal and 
order its re-hearing. 
We therefore see no force in this appeal and 
accordingly dismi8s it. 
A ppe.al d ismis;;t d. 
THE MANAGE:IJE~T OF U.B. DUTT & CO. 
v. 
WORKMEN OF U.B. DCTT & CO. 
(P. B. GA.,JE!'IDRAGADKAR, A. IC SARKAii and 
K. N. WANCllOU, JJ.) 
Induatrial Dilpul<-1'ermination of .•m.·ice of employee 
in lerln6 of contract-Dropping of propnsed deparlrrumtal •nquiry 
-If colcurable exercise of power-If ca11 be questioned before 
i11d1Utrial-tribu1.al-Principle tuminating Government Service 
-If IJf>Plits to indUdtrial emplcyeu. 
S, employed by the appellant as a cross cutter in the 
saw mill was asked to show cause why his services should not 
be terminated on account of grave indiscipline and misconduct 
and he denied the allegations of fact. 
He was thereafter 
informed about a department enquiry to be held against him 
and was suspended pc~ding enquiry. Purporting to act under 
r. 18(a) of the Standing Orders, the appellant terminated the 
services of S, without holding any departmental enquiry. The 
industrial tribunal to which the dispute was referred held, that 
action taken, after dropping the proposed departmental pro· 
ceedings was not bonafid< and was a colourable cx.rcisc of the 
power conferred under r. 18(a) of the Standing Order and 
aince no attempt was made before it to defend such action by 
proving the alleged misconduct, it passed an order for reinsta-
tement of S. The appellant contended that as the termination 
was strictly in accordance \Vith the terms of contract under 
r. 18(a) of the Standing Ordcn, it was entitled to dispense 
• 
• 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT BEPORTS 
with the service of an employee at any 1in1e Uy tirst giviug 
14 days notice or, paying 12 days \vagc.s. 
Hel1l, that the en1ployer's decision tu discharge the 
ernployce under r. l8(a) of the St<ttiding Oi-<lcrs after dropping 
the enquiry in tended to be helrl for 1nisconduct, \vas clcal'ly 
a colourable exercise of the po\ver, and an en1ployer could not 
press his right. purely on contract and ~ay that under the 
contract he has unfettered rjght "to hire and fire" his 
employees, right v.·as subject to industrial adjudication and 
even a power like that granted by r-. I S(a) rif the Standiug 
Orders in this case, \\·as subject t1l the scrutiriy of industrial 
courts. 
Even in a case of this kind the req11iten1cnt of bona· 
fides was esse11tial and if the tern1ination of service \Vas a 
colourable exercise of power, or was a 1csult of vic:tin1isation or 
unfair labour practice, the tribunal h,-,d 
jurisdiction to 
inter\·enc and set aside such tern1ination. 
Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers of the 
Company, (1952] L.A.C. 490, referred to. 
1'he Chartered Bank Bomlray v. 1'he Uharleml Bank JJ:mp-
loyees.Uniun. 
(1960] :l S.t:.R. 441 az'd A.;sam. Uil Company v. 
its Workmen, [1%llj :J S.C.H. 457, followed. 
lleld, further, that the priHci1>le relating to termination 
ofGovernnient service stands on au entirely difl"ercut footing 
as cun1pared to industrial en1ployec.'i an<l the sa1ne principle 
could not be applied to industrial adju<lication. 
Parshotam Lal Dhinyra v. Union uf India, [1958] S.C.R. 
828, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JumsmcTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 50 of l9til. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award 
dated March 10, 1959, of the Industrial Tribunal. 
Kozhikode, in I.D. No. 89 of 1958. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri and 'I'. V. R. Tatachari, 
for the appellant. 
Jcinardan Sharma, for the respondente. 
'1962. January 29. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
WANCHOO. J.-This is an appeal by special 
leave iu an industrial matter. The brief faets nflces-
sary for present purposes are these. The appellant 
in a saw-mill carrying on business in Kozihkode in 
Thi Menagd.dnt.of 
U. B. Dull "'Co. 
v. 
Workm1nof 
U. B. Dutt & Co. 
Wanchoo J, 
116$ 
n..w-.. w." 
U.·B Dolt di Co • 
•• 
W..tr.m'o/ 
U. B. Dall di Co. 
Wanc.W J. 
824 SUPR&'dE COURT RgPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
the State of Kerala. 
One Sankaran was in the 
employ of the appellant ae a crosscutter. I

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