AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the workman against order dated 30th April, 2008 passed by learned single
Judge whereby and whereunder at the instance of the Management of Modern Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
''Management''), the award passed by the II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai, which was in favour of the workman, has been set aside.
The brief facts of the case is that the workman was appointed temporarily as Junior Assistant on 18th Sept., 1995, and placed on probation for
a period of six months. While so, his service was terminated on 15th March, 1996, without assigning any reason. A dispute was raised and on
failure of conciliation, the workman moved before the Labour Court u/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for his reinstatement with back
wages and continuity of service. Learned Presiding Officer, II Addl. Labour Court, Chennai, by impugned award dated 31st July, 2006, in I.D.
No.336/96, answered the award in favour of the workman directing the Management to reinstate the workman in service without back wages, but
with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. The award, aforesaid, having set aside at the instance of the Management, the workman
preferred this appeal.
Before the Labour Court, the workman took plea that without any opportunity, the order of termination was passed.
The main contention of the Management was that, since the workman was on probation and his performance was not satisfactory, on completion
of the period of probation, his services were terminated. Learned Labour Court, having noticed the evidence that the workman was appointed
after calling for names from the employment exchange and that the Management has stated that his performance was not satisfactory, giving
reference to Supreme Court decision in V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and Others, only referring to the headnotes, held that regular enquiry and
opportunity was a must and the service of the workman having terminated without any enquiry or framing of any charges, the order of termination
has to be set aside and, thereby, passed the award in favour of the workman.
The only question involved in the present case is whether the order of termination is punitive or simplicitor.
Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant referred to the impugned letter of termination to suggest that the said letter recites a file or
some other letters and, thereby, the background of issuance of order of termination is to punish the petitioner. It was submitted that the impugned
letter of termination may be innocuous, but if the proceeding as referred to in the said letter is seen, it will be evident that it is penal in nature. He
also relied on certain decisions of Supreme Court, which will be discussed at the appropriate stage.
For appreciation of the case of workman, it is relevant to notice and quote certain letters, including the order of termination as communicated to
the workman.
By a memorandum having reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96 dated 5th Dec., 1995, certain allegations were levelled against the workman
while he was in service and explanation was called for, for the following allegations:
Ref. No.MS/ADMN/P.F. 340/95-96 Date : 5.12.95
MEMORANDUM
* * * * * *
Shri G.Nagoor, Jr.Asst (Stores) is directed to explain:
1) Why and how the note was sent to Accounts Dept., recommending payment to Sri Babu for weighing pouches when the work was reported to
be done by Sri G.Kuppan, casual worker.
2) Why he engaged Sri Babu, Cleaning Contract Worker for stacking yeast when a regular and a casual worker were on duty at Stores.
3) Why Shri Babu was engaged from 14.00 Hrs. when the vehicle bringing the yeast came only at 16.10 Hrs.
By another memorandum having same reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96, dated 19th Dec., 1995, theworkman was advised to be careful
and, thereby, he was warned, as quoted hereunder:
Ref. No.MS/ADMN/P.F. 340/95-96 Date : 19.12.95
MEMORANDUM
The explanation given by Shri G.Nagoor, Jr. Asst. (Stores) vide his letter dated 7.12.95 was gone through and it was observed that some of the
facts given therein are not correct. On enquiry, it was found that Sri G.Kuppan, casual worker was engaged at Stores on 21.11.93 actually
weighed the pouches. Shri G.Nagoor is advised to be very careful and take up the facts before writing notes recommending payment to a person.
He is also advised to consult his senior colleagues before engaging any person on contract basis in future.
Sd/-
SR. GENERAL MANAGER
By an third memorandum having same reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96, dated 22nd Jan., 1996, the Management intimated the result of
review of performance, whereby question was raised with regard to his integrity, as quoted hereunder:
Ref. No.MS/ADMN/P.F. 340/95-96 Date : 22.01.96
MEMORANDUM
On a review of the performance of Shri G.Nagoor during his first quarter of the probation period, it has been reported that,
a) his general performance is not satisfactory;
b) he is negligent in his duty;
c) his integrity is questionable;
d) his relation with his superiors and co-workers is not satisfactory; and
e) his punctuality to duty is also not satisfactory.
Shri G.Nagoor is hereby directed to improve his performance.
SR. GENERAL MANAGER
By a 4th memorandum, having same reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96, dated 1st Feb., 1996, the workman was charged for certain
allegation and asked to submit explanation, failing which it was indicated that action was to be taken against him, as evident from the said letter:
Ref. No.MS/ADMN/P.F. 340/95-96 Date : 01.02.96
MEMORANDUM
* * * * *
There was a claim from Stores on 4.1.96 indicating that Shri G.Nagoor worked on 25.12.95. On the basis of the claim, holiday wages (double the
rate) to the tune of Rs. 209.30 were claimed and Shri G.Nagoor received the amount on 11.1.96. Shri G.Nagoor is directed to explain why he
received the extra wages at double rate when he has already applied for C-Off in lieu of the work performed on a declared holiday. His replies
should reach the undersigned on or before 4.2.96, failing which it will be deemed that he has no explanation to offer and disciplinary action will be
taken against him.
Subsequently, by another memorandum having same reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96, dated 9th Feb., 1996, the workman was asked
to be more careful in future for making excess payment.
Thereafter, another memorandum was issued asking for explanation with regard to allegations vide same reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-
96, dated 14th Feb., 1996, as quoted hereunder:
Ref. No.MS/ADMN/P.F. 340/95-96 Date : 14.02.96
MEMORANDUM
It has been reported that Shri G.Nagoor, Jr.Asst. (Stores) while on duty on 12.2.96 supervised the bundling and loading of empty tins by the
empty contractor, M/s.Patnam & Co., Madras -1. Shri G.Nagoor also prepared a Delivery Challan No.007371 dated 12.2.96 for 624 tins for
various sizes. The consignments were also loaded into the vehicle before the vehicle leaving the company premises, Sri P.V.Ramakrishnan,
Sr.Asst. (Stores) inspected the vehicle and found that 882 empty tins have been loaded. In other words, 258 tins have been unauthorisedly loaded
excess into the vehicle without preparing the Delivery Challan and collecting the money for the same.
It has further been reported that the tins not been bundled property and good tins have been bundled as cut open tins. After final inspection, it was
noticed that 882 Nos., of various varieties of tins have been loaded into the vehicle which has been confirmed by the party as well as other 3 store
keepers, including Shri G.Nagoor in writing. Shri G.Nagoor is directed to explain how the above discrepancies have happened and for which
disciplinary action should not be taken against him for his breach of trust & confidence and attempting to make loss to the revenue of the company.
His explanation should reach the undersigned within three days, failing which it will be deemed that he has no explanation to offer and action will be
taken against him as per the provisions of the Standing Orders of the company.
Sd/
ACCOUNTS MANAGER
After about one month of the said letter, the service of the appellant was terminated by memorandum having same reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-
340/95-96, dated 15th March, 1996, which reads as follows:
Ref. No.MS/ADMN/P.F. 340/95-96 Date : 15.03.96
MEMORANDUM
The services of Shri G.Nagoor, Jr. Assistant (Stores) on probation stands terminated with effect from March 15, 1996 AN.
Sd/
SR. GENERAL MANAGER
We have extensively quoted the aforesaid memorandums, as the sole plea taken by learned Counsel for the appellant-workman is that the order
of termination is not simplicitor, but penal in nature. He placed reliance on each of the aforesaid memorandum preceding the order of termination to
show that the same reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96, shown in the order of termination, which means that the earlier memorandums have
been noticed to terminate the service of the workman. He placed reliance on Supreme Court decision in Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra
Nath Bose National center for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others, . Therein, at paragraph-18, Supreme Court formulated one of the question:
(3) Can the stigma be gathered by referring back to proceedings referred to in the order of termination.
In the said case, the contention of the appellant was that if the said appellant was to seek employment elsewhere, any new employer will ask him to
provide the copies of the letters as were referred in his order of termination and that if the said letters contain findings, which are arrived at without
full-fledged departmental enquiry, those findings will amount to stigma and will come in the way of his career. In the said case, Supreme Court
made the following observation:
The above decision is, in our view, a clear authority for the proposition that the material which amounts to stigma need not be contained in the
order of termination of the probationer but might be contained in any document referred to in the termination order or in its annexures. Obviously,
such a document could be asked for or called for by any future employer of the probationer. In such a case, the order of termination would stand
vitiated on the ground that no regular enquiry was conducted. We shall presently consider whether on the facts in the case before us, the
documents referred to in the impugned order contain any stigma.
Learned Counsel for the respondent while contested the matter, submitted that reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96 do not connote
reference to any earlier proceeding, as suggested by learned Counsel for the appellant. It is merely the file number in which all the orders of
workman are docketed. While he produced the original file in support of the stand, submitted that for all other workman there is a separate file
opened with number of the employee. The word ""MS"" connotes ''Madras''; ""Admn"" connotes ''Administration''; ""PF"" connotes ''Personal File'';
340"" is the number of the workman and ""95-96"" is the year of opening the file, as referred to in all the letters and memorandum communicated to
the workman. Referring to different decisions of Supreme Court, it was submitted that the termination of probationer without assigning any reason
is discharge simplicitor and should not be interfered in view of the earlier memorandums, which were served on the workman.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and noticed the rival contentions. We have also perused the original record produced by the
Management.
The workman has referred to a letter having reference No.MS/GM/RECTT/95-96 dated 1st Sept., 1995, as his order of appointment. On a
perusal of the same, we find that it is an offer of appointment to the post of Junior Assistant showing therein the terms and conditions and the
workman was asked to send his willingness for being considered for the post aforesaid on such terms and conditions. From the file it appears that
the letter of appointment was issued on 18th Sept., 1995, as quoted hereunder:
Ref. No.MS/ADMN/P.F. 340/95-96 Date : 18.09.95
MEMORANDUM
Sub : Recruitment to the post of JUNIOR ASSISTANT
Ref : Offer of appointment No.MS/GM/RECTT/PF.340/95-96 dated 11.9.95
--------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the above offer of appointment, Shri G.Nagoor has reported for duty today (18.9.95) forenoon. He is appointed as JUNIOR
ASSISTANT in the scale of pay of Rs. 1310 '' 30 '' 1460 '' 35 '' 1635 '' 40 '' 2035 with effect from 18.9.95 under the terms and conditions
stipulated in the offer of appointment.
He will be on probation for a period of six months from this date. He is posted in the Stores Dept.
K.RAMAN
SR. GENERAL MANAGER
If the letter of appointment (memorandum) dated 18th Sept., 1995, aforesaid is compared with subsequent orders (memorandums) issued
between 5th Dec., 1995 and 14th Feb., 1996, it will be evident that common reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96 has been written therein.
Similar reference number has been made in other documents as available in the file, but not enclosed by the parties. Therefore, we are of the clear
opinion that the reference as shown in the impugned letter dated 15th March, 1996, has been given in all the letters issued in respect of the
appellant and, thereby, it cannot be presumed that while order of termination has been issued, they have referred to only the letters between 5th
Dec., 1995 and 14th Feb., 1996, as all other letters apart from those letters, including the letter of appointment also bears the same reference
number.
In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National center for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others, we have noticed that
stigma could be inferrable from the reference quoted in termination order, though the order itself may not contain anything offensive.
In V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and Others, Supreme Court held that a probationer''s service cannot be terminated arbitrarily or punitively
without complying with the principles of natural justice. In the said case, in the order of termination dated 2nd Dec., 1998, it was mentioned that
the employee failed in performance of his duties administratively and technically. The Supreme Court having noticed such version in the order of
termination, held that the order is ex-facie stigmatic as also punitive.
In the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and anr, the Supreme Court discussed the test to
determine whether the order is punitive or simplicitor. The Supreme Court held that order terminating the service of a probationer for unsuitability
for the job is not by itself stigmatic. That was the case in which the language used in the order of termination was that the applicants ""work and
conduct has not been found to be satisfactory"". The Supreme Court held that such order is not ex-facie stigmatic and further held as follows:
One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the
termination there was (a) full-scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of
guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any
one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld.
In another case of Municipal Committee, Sirsa Vs. Munshi Ram, when similar case fell for consideration, it was noticed by Supreme court that the
discharge order, ex-facie showing discharge simplicitor. Evidence on record, however, showing act of negligence on the part of the employee,
noticed by office of employer, though said evidence neither noticed in the discharge order nor any finding recorded in the discharge order passed
thereon. To find out whether the order of discharge is punitive in guise of discharge, after taking into consideration all the facts, the Supreme Court
held that as the order of termination indicates that it is a termination simplicitor and does not casts any stigma on the employee nor it is punitive, in
such case, even the principles of natural justice does not apply and there is no need for formal proceeding of enquiry before making such order.
Mere fact that there was no enquiry conducted in regard to the employee concerned earlier would not, thereby, render the termination invalid.
The question whether the order of termination was simplicitor or punitive, if stigmatic, then the mode of determination, again fell for
consideration before the Supreme Court in Abhujit Gupta Vs. S.N.B. National center, Basic Sciences and Others, . In the said case, Supreme
Court held that termination of probationer referring to unsatisfactory performance would not prejudice the future employment of the employee.
In a recent case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Vs. Arunkumar Madhavrao Sinddhaye and Another, the Supreme Court was of the view that
the termination of the probationer pursuant to preliminary or fact finding enquiry, but not in connection with a departmental enquiry, would not
amount to punitive termination.
In the present case, order of termination of workman is simplicitor and has been passed without assigning any reason. Though it has been
brought to the notice of the Court that some explanations were sought for, for holding fact finding enquiry, but, admittedly, no departmental
proceeding was initiated against the workman. We have already observed that the reference No.MS/ADMN./PF-340/95-96 do not refer to any
earlier proceeding, but is a file number reflected in all letters and memorandums issued to the workman, it is not confined to the letters issued
between 5th Dec., 1995 and 14th Feb., 1996, and such reference has also been given in the order of appointment and other letters, which has
nothing to do with casting any stigma. We, therefore, come to a definite conclusion that the impugned order dated 15th March, 1996, do not cast
any stigma on the workman and is not punitive in nature. No case has been made out to differ with the findings of learned single Judge.
In absence of any merit, we dismiss the writ appeal. But there shall be no order as to costs.