ROURKELA STIL PLANT EXECUTIVES ASSOCIATION v. CHAIRMAN, SAIL
1998-11-01
B.K.RAMAMOORTHY
body1998
DigiLaw.ai
K. Ramamoorthy, J. ( 1 ) THE second petitioner was working as Foreman (Purchase and Stores) in the first respondent Company. On 26. 07. 1975 the order was passed terminating his service and the order reads as under: STEEL HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED ROURKELA STEEL PLANT ROURKELA Office Order No. PL-KM-54 Dt. 26. 7. 75 THE services of Shri P. C. Jha, Purchase Officer, Rourkela Steel Plant, Rourkela, are hereby terminated with immediate effect. Shri Jha will accordingly be released from the services of the Company with effect from the afternoon of 26/7/1975. He is paid three months pay in lieu of three months notice along with this order. HE will hand over charges and also return the Company s equipment/properties, if any, in his custody. FURTHER, he will vacate the company s quarters within one month from the date of termination of service failing which he will be lible to py the Compny dmges for unuthorised occuption s well s eviction therefrom. sd/- ( P. L. Aggrwal ) General Manager ( 2 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, on 24/12/1980, the first respondent passed the order reinstating the petitioner and the order reads as under: STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. ROURKELA STEEL PLANT No. PL-OD-Rectt-93 Dated: 24/12/1980 Dear Sir, Please refer to your representation dated 24/5/1980 addressed to the Managing Director, Rourkela Steel Plant. A Committee constituted by Chairman, SAIL has reviewed your case. In accordance with the recommendation of the Committee and with the approval of the Chairman, SAIL, it has been decided to appoint you in this organisation as a fresh entrant. Accordingly, an offer of appointment to the post of Foreman is sent herewith. ( 3 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order passed in 1980 stating that the earlier order passed on 26. 07. 1975 is wholly void and while reinstating the petitioner is deemed to have resumed to his duty and there is no question of petitioner No. 2 being a fresh entrant. To the extent the petitioner s appointment is treated as fresh appointment the order passed on 24. 12. 1980 is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first respondent after the order was passed on 26. 07. 1975 constituted a committee to go into the allegations against the petitioner and other employees similarly situated.
12. 1980 is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first respondent after the order was passed on 26. 07. 1975 constituted a committee to go into the allegations against the petitioner and other employees similarly situated. Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner No. 2 on the basis of the Report Committee, the order was passed on 24. 12. 1980. According to the first respondent the petitioner No. 2 given sufficient opportunity and the petitioner No. 2 was well aware of the contents of the Report of the Committee and therefore, he cannot challenge the order dated 24/12/1980. According to the respondents the petitioner No. 2 cannot challenge the order dated 26/07/1975 in view of what had happened subsequent to passing of that order. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and ors. Vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and another AIR 1986 SC 1571 the order dated 26/07/1975 is absolutely void and it cannot be sustained. The learned counsel also refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uptron India Limited Vs. Shammi Bhan and Anr. 1998 (3) JT SC 47. ( 6 ) THE order dated 26/07/1975 cannot be relied upon the the first respondent. While passing the order dated 24/12/1980, it is wholly inexplicable, as to how the first respondent could treat the petitioner No. 2 as a fresh entrant. The order is absolutely arbitrary and it is contrary to law. In so far as it treated the petitioner as a fresh entrant, the order stands quashed and the petitioner is entitled to all the consequential benefits. The writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.