WORKERS EMPLOYED IN HIRAKUD DAM versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 646 · Decided: 02-02-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

646 
WORKERS EMPLOYED IN HIRAKUD DAM 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. 
February 2, 1971 
[J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Ceritra/ Public. Works Department Code, 
Paragraph 11-Word 'dis-
niissed'. in paragrf!-Ph;· . '!leaning of-Whether means dismissal for serious 
misconduct onlv or include~, ~erminatioli simp/ic:iter. 
The construction of the Hitakud Dam was entrusted by the State 
of Orissa to the Central Water Irrigation anc!o Navigation Commission 
as their agent. 
The 
Commission tor 
this purpose employed a large 
number of persons in the worked-charged establishment 0.1 scales 
of 
remuneration at the rate paid by the Central Public Works Depart• 
ment. Their service conditions were to be governed by the Central Public 
Works Department Code of 1929. 
After completion of the firs( stage 
of the Hirakud project the State Government took it over from the 
aforesaid Commission. 
The employees of the work charged establish-
ment ,were given an option to work for the State on the scales of re-
muneration and the conditions of service in the Code. 
However, since 
there was wide disparity between the,e employees and the work charged 
employees of the State's own Public Works Department, the services of 
the fo:mer wert" terminateC. 
Such of then1 who a-;cepted re-employment 
were employed by ·the State on the ·terms and conditions of service 
of t'1e State Public .Works Department. 
They were given compensation 
for termination of service and one month's salary in lieu of notice. 
Subsequently they raised a dispute contesting the termination of their ser-
vices bv the State. 
The Iodustr;al Tribunal held that 
under 
para-
graph . J l of the Central Public Works De~artment Code which applied 
to them at the relevant time the emoloyees were entitled to ren:ain, in 
service till the completion of the Project. 
The High Court in petitions 
under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution bv the State held the ter-
mination justified under paragraph 11 of the CO<'e because it provided 
inter alia that the members of the· 
work charged 
establishment 
\Vere 
entitled if diSmissed otherwise than for serious misconduct. before the 
completion of the work in which thev were engaged, to a month's notice 
or a month's pay in lieu of notice. 
Paragraph 11 also pro,;ded that the 
workers could resign after a month's notice or forfeiture of pay in lieu 
of one month's notice. 
In appeal by the employees against the High 
Court"s judgment it was contended before this Court 
that 
'dismissal' 
within the meaning ·of paragraph · 11 was to be underst~od only as d.is-
missaJ for seriOtis misconduct and not dlismissal sitnpliciter. 
Support 
for this contention was sought fi:_om the fact that ·the word 
'dismissal' 
as used in the Governmenf of India Act, 1935, and In Art. 311 of the 
Constitution as well as the Service Rules had been interpreted bY the 
Courts to mean only dismissal by way of punishment. 
HELD : The word 'dismissal' used in the Government of India .t.ct, 
1935 as also in Art. 311 of the Constitution an& the Senice Rules has 
no doubt beeri interpreted' to mean ti::rmination of a person's ser:vices by 
wav of punishment. But there is clear indication in paragraph 11 of .the 
Cod'-' that the word 'dismissal' has not been used to denote the term~na­
tion of the services of an employee only as and by wav of punISh-
ment.[654 Fl 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
WORKERS OF HJRAKUD DAM v. ORISSA (Vaidialingam, J.) 647 
Having made provisions for the automatic termination of the ser-
vices of an employee when the work comes to an end it is but natural 
that provisions should be made to terminate the ::icrvices of an 
em~ 
ployee even when the work has not been completed If tho employee 
wants to give up the job then under paragraph 11 he has to give a 
month's notice, tailing which he forfeits a month's pay in lieu or such 
notice. Having provided ·for the 
voluntary resignation ,by an employee 
even when the work has not been completecl, it will be odd to hold that 
a similar right has not been given to the employer to terminate the •er-
vices 
of a workman, even 
though 
the work has not finished. 
It 
will again be incongruous to hold that when a person 
is 
dismissed, 
though .not for a serious misconduct, the workman will be entitled to 
a month's notice or a month's pay in lieu of notice, if otherwise there 
can be dismissal for a minor misconduct as and by way of punishment. 
No 'decision has la

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