# MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY v. P. S. MALVENKAR AND ORS

- **Citation:** [1978] 3 S.C.R. 1000
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1978-05-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2161 of 1977
- **Bench:** P. N. Biiagwati, Jaswant Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/municipal-corporation-of-greater-bombay-v-p-s-malvenkar-and-ors-7446
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Tern1ination of 3ervice-Co1npetent authority puts the initials in the draft
order arul tfie order co1111111111icated by his Executive Assistant, lVhether valid.
Industrial E1nployn1en1 (Standing Orders) Order, 1946 S. 21(2), 23 and 26,
scope vf.
The services of Respondent No. 2, a permanent clerk in
the
Bombay.
Electric Supply and Trails port Undertaking, which is run by the appellant were
terminated from the close of work on January 23, 1968 as her
record
of
service was unsatisfactory.
The communication dated January 20, 1968 was
from the Executive Assistant to the (ieneral Manager and it also stated that
she should be paid one month's wages in lieu of notice and would also be
eligible for all the benefits as might be admissible under the Standing Orders
and Service Regulations of the Undertaking.
The appeal pr1?:ferred
by
her
against this order to the Assistant General Manager having
remained
unsuccessful she made an application before the Labour Court under Section -42
( 4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act contending that the order terminating her services was invalid, as it was not passed by the competent authority
as envisaged by the Standing Order and that the so called Executive A'lsistant
to the General Manager had no authority to terminate her services
because
no validity sanctioned Post of that designation existed on 20th or 23rd January,
1968.
It was also contended that the aforesaid order besides being ma/a fide.
was violative of the principles of n<itural justice in as much as the same was
passed without holding any enquiry. The Labour Court dismissed the application. The respondent's appeal before the President of the Industrial Court
was however allowed.
The Industrial Court held that 1he impugned orders
bore only the initials of the General Manager and therefore it was passed by
an authority which was lacking in authority, the
wording
''unsatisfactory
service record'' cast a stigma and was patently punitive attracting the
nonobservance of Standing Order No. 26 which did not create an absolute right
in the management to terminate the services of an employee for misconduct
without holding an enquiry or giving her a fair opportunity of being heard.
A Writ application filed by the appellant was dismissed holding inter alia that
the fact that Standing Order 26 required reasons to be mentioned in the order
terminating the services of an emtiloyee did not mean that an order of dismissal on the ground of misconduct could be converted into an order ot
discharge simpliciter by mentioning therein the nature of misconduct.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court
HELD : 1. Whether a written document or order bea.rs full signatures or only
initials of the competent authority does not, 01ake any significant difference
nor does the affixation of signature by initials on a document or order detract
from its authenticity unless the law or the rule
specifically
requires
full
signature to be affixed thereto to make it authentic.
[1005 ElF]
~n the ins~ant case :
(~) the _impunged order terminating the respondent's
services was in fact and in reality passed by the General Manager himself
who was the competent authori~ as defined by clause
(e)
of
Standing
Order 3 and wa~ me~elJ; comm1;1n1cated by his Executive Assistant to the respondent;
(b) since 1t ts established on the record that the impugned order
•
-
•
..
-
t
-
-
•
'~ •
0BOMBAY CORPORATION V. MALVENKAR
1001
.was in fact .and in reality n1ade by the General Manager and there is nothing
:to indicate that it was not consciously made by him, it could not have been
•quashed on the ground
that
it
was
passed by
an
incompetent
autho~
rity.
[1005 C, G-HJ
2. ·rhe question whether a particular order terminating the service of an
.employee is by way of punishment or not has to be determined on the facts
.and circumstances of each case and the form of the order is not decisive of the
matter. i I 006 BJ
Under Standing Orders, two po\vers are given to the management; one is
..

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
1000
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY
v.
P. S. MALVENKAR AND ORS.
May 5, 1978
[P. N. BIIAGWATI AND JASWANT SINGH, JJ.]
Tern1ination of 3ervice-Co1npetent authority puts the initials in the draft
order arul tfie order co1111111111icated by his Executive Assistant, lVhether valid.
Industrial E1nployn1en1 (Standing Orders) Order, 1946 S. 21(2), 23 and 26,
scope vf.
The services of Respondent No. 2, a permanent clerk in
the
Bombay.
Electric Supply and Trails port Undertaking, which is run by the appellant were
terminated from the close of work on January 23, 1968 as her
record
of
service was unsatisfactory.
The communication dated January 20, 1968 was
from the Executive Assistant to the (ieneral Manager and it also stated that
she should be paid one month's wages in lieu of notice and would also be
eligible for all the benefits as might be admissible under the Standing Orders
and Service Regulations of the Undertaking.
The appeal pr1?:ferred
by
her
against this order to the Assistant General Manager having
remained
unsuccessful she made an application before the Labour Court under Section -42
( 4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act contending that the order terminating her services was invalid, as it was not passed by the competent authority
as envisaged by the Standing Order and that the so called Executive A'lsistant
to the General Manager had no authority to terminate her services
because
no validity sanctioned Post of that designation existed on 20th or 23rd January,
1968.
It was also contended that the aforesaid order besides being ma/a fide.
was violative of the principles of n<itural justice in as much as the same was
passed without holding any enquiry. The Labour Court dismissed the application. The respondent's appeal before the President of the Industrial Court
was however allowed.
The Industrial Court held that 1he impugned orders
bore only the initials of the General Manager and therefore it was passed by
an authority which was lacking in authority, the
wording
''unsatisfactory
service record'' cast a stigma and was patently punitive attracting the
nonobservance of Standing Order No. 26 which did not create an absolute right
in the management to terminate the services of an employee for misconduct
without holding an enquiry or giving her a fair opportunity of being heard.
A Writ application filed by the appellant was dismissed holding inter alia that
the fact that Standing Order 26 required reasons to be mentioned in the order
terminating the services of an emtiloyee did not mean that an order of dismissal on the ground of misconduct could be converted into an order ot
discharge simpliciter by mentioning therein the nature of misconduct.
Allowing the appeal by special leave, the Court
HELD : 1. Whether a written document or order bea.rs full signatures or only
initials of the competent authority does not, 01ake any significant difference
nor does the affixation of signature by initials on a document or order detract
from its authenticity unless the law or the rule
specifically
requires
full
signature to be affixed thereto to make it authentic.
[1005 ElF]
~n the ins~ant case :
(~) the _impunged order terminating the respondent's
services was in fact and in reality passed by the General Manager himself
who was the competent authori~ as defined by clause
(e)
of
Standing
Order 3 and wa~ me~elJ; comm1;1n1cated by his Executive Assistant to the respondent;
(b) since 1t ts established on the record that the impugned order
•
-
•
..
-
t
-
-
•
'~ •
0BOMBAY CORPORATION V. MALVENKAR
1001
.was in fact .and in reality n1ade by the General Manager and there is nothing
:to indicate that it was not consciously made by him, it could not have been
•quashed on the ground
that
it
was
passed by
an
incompetent
autho~
rity.
[1005 C, G-HJ
2. ·rhe question whether a particular order terminating the service of an
.employee is by way of punishment or not has to be determined on the facts
.and circumstances of each case and the form of the order is not decisive of the
matter. i I 006 BJ
Under Standing Orders, two po\vers are given to the management; one is
..the power to impose punishn1ent for misconduct after a disciplinary. inquiry
.under clause (2) of the Standing Order 21 read with Standing Order 23 and
-the other is the power to terminate the service of an en1ployee
by
one
,,.(). calendar month's written notice or pay in lieu thereof under Standing Order 2.6.
\
The question is as to which power has been exercised by the :rvl<1nagc111ent in
_a particulnr case and this question has to be determined having regard to the
substance of the matter and not its form.
Now, one thing n1ust be borne
in mind that these are t\\'O distinct and independent powers and as
far
as
possible, neither should be construed so as to en1asculate the other or to
render it ineffective.
One is the pO\\'er to punish an employee for nlisconduct
·v.1hile the other is the po\ver to terminate simpliciter th~ service of
<in e1nployee without any other adverse con~equences.
[1006 B-D]
3. Proviso (i) to clause (I) of Standing Order 26 requires 1hwt the reason
for termination of the employn1ent should be given in writing to the en1ployee
when exercising the po\ver of termination of service of the en1ployee
under
Standing Order 26.
Therefore, when the service of an employee is terminal·
ed simpliciter under Standing Order 26, ·the reason for such tern1ination has
to be given to the employee nnd this provision has been niadc in the Standing
·Order with a view to ensuring that the n1anagement does not act
in
an
arbitrary manner.
The managen1ent is required to articulate the reason which
·operated on its mind in terminating the service of the employee.
But merely
because the reason for tern1inating the service of the employee is required to
be given-and the reason must obviou<;ly not be arbitrary,
capricious
or
irrelevant-it \Vould not necessarily in every case make the order of termination punitive in character so as to require compliwnce \Vith the
requirement
<>f clause (2) of Standing Order 21 read with Standing Order 23.
Otherwise,
the po\ver of tern1ination of service of an employee under Standing Order 26
would be rendered meaningless wnd futile, for in no ·,::ase it would be possible
io exercise it.
Of course, if niiscond uct of the
en1ployee
constitutes
the
foundation for terminating his service, then even if the order of termination
is purported to be n1ade under Standing Order 26, it 1nay be liable to be
regarded as punitive in character and hence attracting procedure of clause (2)
of Standing Order 21 read v,rith Sta•nding Order 23, though even in such a case
\
it may be argued that the management has not punished the emiJl.oyee but has
'.~merely tern1inated 'his service under Standing Order 26. [1006 D-:H]
In the present case, the order of termination cannot be regarded ::is punitive
in character so as to invoke the applicability of clause (2) of Standing Order
read with Standing Order -23.
The reason given for terminating the service
of the respondent 'vas unsatisfactory record of service.
No misconduct
was
alleged against the respondent nor \\1as any misconduct made the foundation
for passing the' impugned order of termination.
The order of
termination
was clearly not passed 'by ·way of punishing the respondent for any misconduct.
·the view that the service of the respondent was not satisfwctory was
undoubtedly based on past incidents set out in the record but for each of these
incidents punishment in one form or another had a1ready been meted out
to her and it w.as not 'by way of punishment for any of these incidents,
but
because as gathered from these incidents, her record of service was unsatisfactory that her service ·was terminated
by
the management under Stanrlin!l
Ordor .26. [1006 H, 1007 A-Bl
13-329 SCI/78
/
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
·E
F
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPOR rs
LI 97X] J S.C.R'-
Even if the view were taken that the impugned order of termination of
service of the respondent \Vas punitive in character and could not have
been.
passed save and except as a result of a disciplinary
inquiry
held
under
clause (2) of Standing Order 21 read with Standing Order 23, the impugned
order cannot be struck down as invalid the· ground of non~compliance
with.
the requirement of the Standing Orders, since respondent no. 2 availed of the
opportunity open to her before the Labour Court when the appellant a<lducect;.
sufficient evidence justifying the action taken by the management. The appellant.
produced satisfactory evidence to show that the
in1pugned
order terminating
the service of the respondent was justified and hence the impuigned order must
be sustained despite its having been passed \vithout complying with rhc requirements of clause (2) of Standing Order 21 read with Stand"ing Ofder 23.
No
distinction can be made between cases where the domestic enquiry is invalidor defective and those where no enquiry has in fact b-een held as required by
the relevant Stau.ding Orders and in either c·ase it is open to the en1ployer t<Y
justify his action before the Labour Tribunal by adducing all
relevant evij~
dence before it. [1007 C-E]
T
The Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. lts Workmen, [1960]
l S.C.R. 806,
Manage1nent of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its J+'orknien, [1963] J S.C.R. 461,
Workmen of Matipur Sugar. Factory P. Ltd. v. Moripur Sugar Factory, [1965f
3 S.C.R. 588, Delhi Cloth and General l\.1ills Co. Ltd. v. Ludli Budlz Singh,
[1972] l LU 180. State Bank of India v. R. K. Jain and Ors. [1972] l S.C.R.
755, Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre and Rubber Conrpany of I'ndia (P) Ltd:
v. Manageff1ent and Ors. [1973] 3 S.C.R. 587 and Cooper Engineerin.: Ltd. VShri P. P. Mw1dhe (1976] I S.C.R. 361 followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
No.
2161
of
1977.
Appeal by Special Leave from the J udgmeht and Order
dated'
5-7~1977 of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No.
614/72.
K. K. Singhvi, P. H. Pa,-ekh, D. C. Shroff, C. B. Singh, Kai/ash
Ba,udtv and Mrs. Manju Sharma for the Appellant.
K. Ra;endra Choudhary and Mrs. V. D. Khanna for Respondent
No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
l
•
JASWANT SINGH, J.
This appeal by special leave which is directecf
against the judgment and order dabod J_uly 5. _ 1977 of t~e Bombay High~·
Court d1sm1ssmi; the appellant's specml €1v1l apphcat1o'n No. 614 of
· '-
1972 and refusmg to quas)l the order dated Apnl 5, 1972 of the
·
President, Industrial Court, Maharash:rn, Bomiray, whereby the latter
,
set aside the order of the 4th Labour Court at Bombay and directed
reinstatement in service of Miss M. P. Padgaonkar, respondent No. z.
(hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') with full back wages on
the ground that her termihation of service was had in Jaw raises the:
following questions :-
"whether the termination of service of a permanent employee of the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking on account of his unsatisfactory record of service can
l>o regarded as punitive so as to cGJmpel the employer to hold
a disciplinary enquiry ?
' ,.,
..
...
•
•
BOMBAY CORPORATION v. MALVENKAR (laswallt Singh, l.)
or
whether such terminatioh can be effected by giving in writing
to the employee the aforesaid reason for termination and one
calendar month's written notice or pay including allo\vanccs
adwissible in lieu thereof ?
1003
For a proper determination of the abovementioned questions, it is
desirable to state the circumstances which have given rise to the appeal.
The respondent who was working since February 4, 1959 as a clerk
in grade A/G-V in the Consumers Department (North) of the B.E.S.T.
(Dombay Electric Supply & Transport) Undertaking (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as 'the Undertaking') which is run by
the appellant was informed by the Executive Assistant to the General
Ma'nager of the Und,"rtaking vide communication dated January 20.
1968, that her services would stand terminated from lhe close of work
on January 23, 1968, as her record of service was unsatisfactory. It
was, however, otated in the communication that she would be paid one
month's wages in lieu of notice and would also be eligible for all the
benefits as might be admissible under the Standing Orders and Service
Regulations of the Undertaking. The appeal preferred by her against
this order to the Assistant Gcll'~ral Manager having remained unsuccessful, the respondent made an application before the Labour Court
under section 42 ( 4) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act contending that the order ~orminati'ng her services was invalid as it was
not passed by the competent authority as envisaged by the Standing
Order and that the so called Executive Assistant to the General Manager
had no authority to terminate her services because no validly sanctioned post of that designation existed on 20th or 23rd January, l 968.
It was also contended by the respondent that the aforesaid order terminating her services besides being ma/a fide was violative of
the
principles of natural justice inasmuch as the same was passed without
holding any enquiry or giving her a reasonable opportunity of defending herseli against the vague and general allegations which formed the
basis of the order. The Labour Court dismissed the application observing thac though the post of Executive Assistant did not exist at the
relevant time, the termination did not suffer from the vice of ma/a fides
nor could it be said to be invalid as it was actually effected by the
General Manager and was merely communicated by his
Executive
Assistant.
The Labour Court further held that despite the fact that
unsatisfactory record of service was mentioned as the reasm for termination, it could not be said to be punitive. Aggrieved by this order
of the Labour Court, the respondent filed an appeal to the President
of the Industrial Court which was allowed by him vide his order dated
April 5, 1972 on the findings that J. P. Fernandes who used the appellation of the Executive Assistant to the General
Manager was not
competent or authorised to terminate the service of the respondent;
that the conclusion of the Labour Court that the impugned order was
made by the General Manager himself was not warranted by the facts
and conduct of the parties; that the law required
the
authority invested with the power of terminating the services of an employee to
exercise that power in a conscious manner reflecting • due care and
B
c
F'
·--:- i '_,, -·- - ...
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
. [J978J 3 S.C.1<-
A
\
.
.
attention and the draft order (fa..l)ibit 41) wt.ich merely bore the
faitials of the General Manager cou''1 not be regarded as a valid substitute for the conscious exercise of the power; that the order which
expressly stated the unsatisfactory record of service as the reason for -
terminating the respondent's services and thus cast a stigma on her
was· patently punitive and that Standing Order 26 did, not create an
absolute·right in .the management to terminate the services of an emB
ployee for misconduct without holding an enquiry or giving him a
fair opportunity of being heard.
Accordingly, the Industrial Court
held that the impugned order was bad in law on ·both the count~ viz.
· (i) that it was passed by an authority which was absolutely lacking
in competence and (ii) that despite its
punitive
character, it was
passed without holding a domestic enquiry or giving an opportunity .
C
to show cause thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The .
appellant thereupon made· an application. to the High Court under
- Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order of the President
of tl1c Industrial Court. The High Court dismissed the petition holding inter alia that the fact that Standing Order 26-required reasons to
be mentioned in the order terminating the services of an employee did
not mean that an order of dismissal on the ground o[ misconduct
could be converted into an order of discharge simpliciter by mention- .
.D
ing therein the. nature of misconduct. It is against this judgment and
order o[ the High Court that the present appeal is directed.
·
Appearing for· the appellant, Mr. K. K. Singhvi has, in· the first
instance urged that the order terminating the respondent's services
could not be held to have been passed by an authority which was
lacking in competence as it was actually made by the General Mana~
:E
ger and was merely communicated over. the signatures of his Executive Assistant. Mr. Singhvi has alternatively urged that the Corporation having accorded sanction to the creation of the post of Executive
Assistant on the Management Establishment (which was from time
to time included in the Establishment Schedule prepared and sanction-.
ed by the B.E.S.T. Committee) for the period beginning from 25th
July 1967 to 30th September 1974 vide Resolution No. 1083 passed
'F
by it under section 460-R of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act
No. III of 1888 at its meeting held on 16th December, 1974, even
the Executive Assistant had plenary authority to take the impugn.ed
· .. action. '.The learned counsel has next contended that the impugned
order was one of discharge or termination of service simpliciter and
could not be regarded as punitive regard being had to the fact. that
besides one inpnth's pay in lieu of notice, the respondent was paid
•G
all the benefits admissible to her under the Standing Orders and Ser- .
vice Regulations; that it was only. to satisfy the requirement of proviso (i) to Standing Order 26 that unsatisfactory record of service
was mentioned in the order as the reason for termination; that Standing Orders gave two ·options to the appellant (1) to terminate the
service of the respondent in the manner it had one, or (2) to impose
the penalty of dismissal as. a result uf a domes ti<: enquiry. . He has
H
further submitted that everi if the order is treated as. punitive which
could not have been passed without the prescribed enquiry, it could
not be held to be bad in law as it was made good by the appellant.
on merits by adducing evidence· before the Labour Court.
/
- ..
•
•
•
BOMBAY CORPORATION·Y. MALYENKAR, (JasW:allt Singh, J.)
100:;
It has, on the other hand, been argued by the !earned counsel
appearing on behalf. of: the, respondent that tl)e order, sufj'ered .. fro111
an inherent infirmity in that it, was passed by the. Exe.cutiye ,Assistant
to .the General Manager who did not have· d~jwe existence on, the
rci\)Nant date, in view, of the fact.that .the durationc.of .the:post,held: by
him.1 hatj not been validly extended by the
Corpo.ration.
He has
further contended, that as the impugned .order which, clearly .cast aspersion· 011 th0 n;sppndent.amou11ted to an order o( dismiss.al1 it could not
have been passed withou.t complying with the. formaliiies prescrilled
by, the Standing Orders.
All these rival contentions require careful examination,
The question as to whether the post of Executive Assistant. to
th1; General. Manage,, validly existed on the relevant date or not does
A
c
not require to be gone into as. wr:, are satisfied that the, impμ!J1le.d
order. terminating. the . .respondent's services was ii\, facLaμd in .. reality
pas~ed by the. General· Manag~r, himself
whq, was. the compe!ei1t
0
author.ity as defined by clause ( e) of Standing. Orde.r 3 and, was
merely communicated . by his. Executive Assistant to . the respondent.
This is amply borne out from the material placed. before the Labour
Cimrt.
The draft of the termina.tion order (Exhibit. 41) which has
been duly proved by Dande.kar who was working,a~,Pe1sonnel Officer
on the relevant date clearly shows that it ·was pu~ .up, before, the General• Manager by the
Superintendent of the
COnsumers Department
E
and was duly approved. and initiallect. by the former. In this state.of,
affairs, we are unable to appreciate. the observations of the. Industrial
Court that since the decision to terminate the service, of: ap .employee
is an, act consciously to be undertaken. and perfor,n1ecL by, the concerned officer, the. mere initialling of the draft order by .. the, General
:l.fanag~r was not enough to make it an authenticated, order of termination.
Whether a written document or order bears full signatures
F
or. only initials of the competent authority does not, in our juctgm.en\;
make any significant. difference nor does the affu<atiol'\ of signature. by
initials on a document. or order detract from its. authenticity unless
the law or the rule specifically requires full signature, to. be. affixed
thernto. to make it authentic, fa Volume., S of Stroud!s Judicial Dictionary ot, Words and,.Phrases (Fourth Edition), it, is -stated by reference. to the dedsion in .Re Wing~oye 15 Jur. 91 that signatnre by
G
initials is good. Again. as stated in Black's Law. Dictionary. (1951
Edition) speaking generally when a. person attaches his simature, to
a written document• he, does so. in token of, kn.owledge, app,roval or
acceptance.
Then. again accordi!lg. to Chambers . New English Dictionary, the word 'sim' means a mark. with a meaning. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that since it is established. on .the record That
the impugned order was in fact. and in reality. ma.(.le. by the. General
Hi
Manager and there is nothing to indicate that. it was not consciously.
made by him, it could not have been, quashed on the, gtound that it
was passed by an incompetent authority.
A
B
c
D
E
·-
fl
100 6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R.
Let us now proceed to consider whether the impugned order was
covered by Standing Order 26 or it was punitive in character and
could not, therefore, be passed except after a
disciplinary inquiry
under clause (2) of Standing Order 21 read with Standing Order 23,
It is now well settled that the question whether a particular order
terminating the service of an employee is by way of punishment or
not have to be determined on the facts and circumstances of each case
and the form of the order is not decisive of the matter. Here, under
Standing Orders, two powers are given to the management; one is the
power to impose punishment for misconduct .after a disciplinary inquiry under clause (2) of Standing Order 21
read with Standing
Order 23 and the other is the power to terminate the service of an
employee by one calendar month's written notice or pay in lieu thereof under Standing Order 26.
The question is as to which power has
been exercised by the management in the present case and this question has to be determined having regard to the substance of the matter
and not its form.
Now, one thing must be borne in mind that tl)ese
are two distinct and independent powers and as. far as possible, neither
should be construed so as to emasculate the other or to render it ineffective.
One is the power to punish an employee for misconduct
while the other is the power to terminate simpliciter the service of an
employee without any other adverse consequence. Now, proviso (i)
to clause ( 1) of Standing Order 26 requires that the reason for te_tmination of the employment should be given in writing to the employee when exercising the power of termination of service of the
employee under Standing Order 26.
Therefore, when the service of
an employee is terminated simpliciter under Standing Order 26, the
reason for such termination has to be given to the employee and this
provision has been made in the Standing Order with a view to ensuring that the management does not act in an arbitrary manner.
The
management is required to articulate the reason which operated on
its mind in terminating the service of the employee. But merely because the reason for terminating the service of the employee is required to be given--and the reason must obviously not be arbitrary,
capricious or irrelevant-it would not necessarily in every case make
the order of termination punitive in character so ns to require compliance with the requirement of clause (2) of Standing Order 21 read
with Standing Order 23. Otherwise, the power of termination of service of an employee under Standing Order 26 would be rendered
meaningless and futile, for in no case it would be possible to exercise
it.
Of course, if misconduct of the employee constitutes the-foundation for terminating his service, then even if the order of termination
is purported to be made under Standing Order 26, it may be liable to
be regarded as punitive in character attracting the procedure of clause
(2) of Standing Order 21 read with Standing Order 23, though _even
in such a case it may be argued that thti management has not punished
the_ employee but has merely terminated his service under Standing
Order 26. It is, however, not necessary for us in the present case to
pronounce on this controversy, since we find that in the present case
the reason given for terminating the service of the respondent ".'as unsatisfactory record of service. No misconduct was alleged ag-_unst the
)
--
-
'
•
•
•
,,-r
·BOMBAY CORPORATION v. MALVENKAR (Jaswa,;t Singh,·).)1001
~ ' \
'
. " -
~
.
~--
- --
-
~ -· - __,, -·.
:, : :respondent nor was .any misconduct.made. the,foundationJor passing
. the ;iinpuiiJed order of:term'na\ion. ·,The order, of,:. territlna\ion . was
.·clearly .. not 'passed hy way d, pt<llishingtbe.'respondentJor ,any .mis-
' conduct. . The. viev. that the service of the respondept. was .,J:\Ot satis-
•
factory was undoubtedly based· on past incidents set out iri the record
:but for_ each of these incidents punishment in one form or another had
already been meted out to her and it was not by way of punishment
for any of these incidents, but because as gathered from these incidents, he« record of service was unsatisfactory that her service was
-terminated by the management under Standing Order 26. It is, therefore, not possible for us to regard the order of termination as punitive
in character so as to invite the applicability of clause (2) of Standing
Order 21 read with Standing Order 23.
But even if the view were taken that the impugned order of termination of service of the respondent was punitive in character and
·could not have been passed save and except as a result of a disciplinary inquiry held under clause (2) of Standing Order 21 read with
Standing .Order 23, the impugned order cannot Ile struck down as invalid on the ground of non compliance with the requirement of these
:Standing Orders, since the respondent No. 2 availed of the opportunity
open to her before the Labour Court when the appellant adduced sufficient evidence justifying the action taken by the management. The
appellant produced satisfactory evidence to show that the impugned
order terminating the service of the respondent was justified and he_i1ce
<he impugned order must be sustained despite its having been passed
witbout complying with the requirements of Clause (2) of Standing
·Order 21 read with Standing Order 23. We are fortified in this view
by a cutena of decisions of this Court where it has been consistently.
held that no distinction can be' made between cases where the domes-·
tic enquiry is invalid or defective and those. where no enquiry has in
·fact been held as required by the relevant Standing Orders ~nd in
·either case it is open to the employer to justify his action before the
Labour Tribunal by adducing all relevant evidence before it.
(See
The Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. Its Workmen
(1960) l S.C.R.
'806, Management of Ritz Theatre (P) Ltd. v. Its Workmen (1963)
·3 S.C.R. 461, Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory (Private) Ltd. v.
Motipur Sugar Factory (1965) 3 S.C.R .. 588, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Ludh Budh Singh (1972) 1 LLJ 180, State Bank
of /tldia v. R. K. Jain and Ors. (1972) 1 S.C.R. 755, Workmen of
,Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India . (P)
Ltd. v.
Management & Ors. (1973) 3 S.C.R. 587 and Cooper Engineering
.Limited v. Shri P. P. Mundhe (1976) 1 S.C.R •. 361.
.
For. the foregoing reasons, we allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and' uphold the impugned action
of the appellant's management. In view of the Court"s order dated
~eptember 19, 1977, the appellant shall pay costs quantified at
Rs. 1,5001- (One thousand and five Iiundred) to respondent No. 2.
This judgment should not, however, stand in the way of respondent,
No. 2 being paid Rs. 15,000/- by the appellant which, in view of
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
ll
IJ
1008
SUPREME COUTR REPOTR~
[1978) 3 S.C.R.
A former's unfortunate p<lsition, the appellant's
learned
counsel was.
good enough on our suggestion to agree to pay her as an ex-gratia payment. This amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall be in addition to the amount
of Rs. 1,500- which the appellant is required to pay to
respondent
No. 2 by way of costs.
S.R.
Apvcal alimiw/.
I
~·· -
•
---x ..
'