THE TATA OIL MILLS CO., LTD. versus WORKMEN & ANR.

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 125 · Decided: 15-02-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

25.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 125 
used by the employees on leave and license. What-
ever payment.w~s received f~om them ~as not them· 
fore "rent" w1thm the meanmg of cl. (u). 
Our conclusion therefore is that no tax is 
leviable under the Punjab Urban Immova?li; pr?-
perty Tax Act, 11140, in respect of the buildmgs m 
these two appeals. The High Court therefore rightly 
quashed the orders of assessment. 
The appeals are 
accordingly dismissed with costs. 
Appeals 'dismissed. 
THE TATA OIL MILLS CO., LTD. 
v. 
WORKMEN & ANR. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, M. HIDAYATULLAH 
and J. C. SHAH JJ.) 
Industrial Disputt-'.l'ermination of service of an employee 
an payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice-Order of 
termination purported ta be discharg• under R. 40 (1) of Service 
Rules-Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to examine whether it 
amounU to a discharge or dismi8Sal. 
Mr. 
Banerjee was an employee of the appellant. His 
services were terminated on the ground that the appellant had 
lost confidence in him and in Heu of notice he was paid one 
month's salary. The union to which Mr. Banerjee belonged 
took up his cause and on the failure of the parties to reach a 
settlement the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal 
by the Government. 
The appellant contended before the Tribunal that the 
order of termination of service of Mr. Banerjee was an order 
of discharge which it was competent to make under R. 40 (I) 
l963 
Stat1 ofol'unjab 
•• 
Britcl India 
iorpoT<tifJll Ltd. 
D., Gupu /, 
1965 --
1963 
t'A1 T.t. Oll Mi/IJ 
.. 
c,, .. , Lt6. 
•• 
Workmm 
126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
of the Service Rules. It was contended by the respondeat 
that the termination was no: a dischari:e 1implicittr but was in 
suhstancc di>miss:il and that the Trihunal was entitled to 
consider the propriety uf the appellant's action . 
The Tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to look into 
the reasons behind the discharge of an employee. On the exa-
mination of the evidence the Tribunal found that no malajid"8 
on the part of the employer had been proved and that the 
termination of service did not amount to victimi1ation or 
unfair labour practice. Even so it held that the discharge was 
not justified and directed the reinstatement of Mr. Banerjee. 
The present appeal is by way of special leave. 
Before this Court, in addition to the above contention 
the appellants contented that in the light of the evidenre 
before the Tribunal its finding that the discharge was not 
justified, was wrong. 
Held, that in the matter of an order of discharge of an 
employee the form of the order is not decisive. An Industrial 
Tribunal has jurisdiction tu examine the substance of the matter 
and decide whether the termination is in fact discharge simpli-
citer or it amounts to dismissal which has put on the cloak of 
discharge simpliciter. 
The test always has to be whether the 
act of the employer is bonafide or whether it is a malafide and 
colourable exercise of the powers conferred by the terms of 
contract or by the standing orders. 
Buckingham & Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workmen of the 
Company (1951) II L. L.J. 314, (Jhart<red Bank, Bombay v. 
Chartered Bank Employees Union (1960) II L. L.]. 222 and 
U. B. DuU & Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Its Workmen, (1962) II 
L. L.J. 374, referred to. 
Since the reasons given by the Tribunal in support of its 
conclusion were wholly unsatisfactory its order must be set 
aside. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 322 of 1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated 
September 13, 1961, of the Second Labour Court, 
West Bengal, in Case No. VIII-C-40 of 1960. 
M. 0. Setalvad, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. 0. 
Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. 
) 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
127 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and 
Janardhrm Sharma, for the respondent No. 1. 
1963. February 15. The Judguent of 'the 
Court was delivered by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-Mr. R. K. Banerjee 
had been employed by the appellant,. the Tata Oil 
Mills Co. Ltd., as a Salesman on April 3, 1956, 
as a probationer and he 
was 
confirmed 
on 
November 5, 1956. On December 5, 1959, his services 
were terminated and he was informed that the appe-
llant had lost confidence in him, and so, it had 
decided to discharge him. 
Accordingly, in lieu of 
notice, he was paid a month's salary and was told 
that he ceased to be the employee of the appe-
llant as from the date next after he received the 
order from the appellant. 

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