Bihar State Road Transport Corporation v. State of Jharkhand
2008-04-02
D.G.R.PATNAIK, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
body2008
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The only point raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the order of dismissal of the workmen respondent is perfectly valid as it was passed by the Additional General Manager who is competent to pass the said order in view of the fact that under Clause 14 of the circular issued in 1954 powers of the General Manager have been delegated to the Additional General Manager who passed the order of dismissal of the respondents No. 2. 3. The workman, the respondent No. 2 on being aggrieved by the order of his dismissal, filed an application before the appellate authority which was dismissed. Then he filed a reference case No. 5 of 1990 before the Tribunal which after conducting an enquiry allowed the application on the ground that the Additional General Manager who passed the order of dismissal was not the competent authority and set aside the order of dismissal of the respondent workman and ordered for his reinstatement. 4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 14.7.1997 passed by the Tribunal, the Management filed the writ petition being CWJC No. 2447 of 1998R in which the learned Counsel for the Management/appellant on the basis of the circular produced before the writ Court contended that the circular was issued on 1.10.1985 under Order No. 2/58 which would show that under Clause 14, the General Manager has delegated powers to Additional General Manager to take disciplinary action against any workman and therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is wrong. 5. However, the learned single Judge rejected his contention that is the document sought to be produced before the writ Court was not produced before the Tribunal at the time of enquiry and as such, it cannot be looked into. Accordingly, the learned single Judge confirmed the order of the Tribunal and ordered reinstatement of the workman/respondent No, 2 and thereby dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the Management. Hence this appeal, 6.
Accordingly, the learned single Judge confirmed the order of the Tribunal and ordered reinstatement of the workman/respondent No, 2 and thereby dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the Management. Hence this appeal, 6. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterates the same argument before this Court stating that the order passed on 1.10.1985 by the Chief of Administration purporting to be under the order of the Chairman-Cum-Managing Director under Clause 14 of the aforesaid circular, gives powers to the Additional General Manager to take action against the workman concerned and it would indicate that the Additional General Manager was competent to pass the order of dismissal. 7. This argument is liable to be rejected inasmuch as the delegation of powers only deal in Section 12(2) of the Road Transport Corporation Act, wherein delegation of powers can be made only by the Chairman/Vice Chairman/Managing Director and not by the General Manager, that too only their powers and not the powers of General Manager. 8. There is no dispute that the authority who was competent to dismiss the respondent No. 2 in this case is only the General Manager who is said to have delegated his power to the Additional General Manager. Admittedly, there is no other provision providing delegation of power to the General Manager to delegate power to Additional General Manager. As indicated above, under Clause 12(2) the Chairman/Vice Chairman or the Managing Director can delegate power of General Manager. In other words, it is to be stated that the circular produced before this Court cannot be construed to have been issued under Clause 12(2). 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the learned single Judge as well as the order of the Tribunal. 10. The respondent is directed to approach the appellant for his reinstatement and other benefits in terms of the order of the Tribunal and in that event, the appellant will act upon the orders passed by the Tribunal as well as by this Court. Appeal dismissed.