Skip to content


Venkataswami (R.) Vs. Director of Commerce and Industries and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLabour and Industrial
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1959)IILLJ702AP
AppellantVenkataswami (R.)
RespondentDirector of Commerce and Industries and anr.
Excerpt:
- - the government was perfectly within its rights in terminating the services, provided it was prepared to pay one month's salary in lieu of notice. 544. if the petitioner had no right to continue in the job, the government can, at any time, terminate his service without giving him a cause to complain under article 311 of the constitution......and that his appointment was purely temporary and co-terminable with the scheme, or by one month's notice on either side. on 1 september 1956, his services were terminated-it being stated in the order that they were so terminated as his work was not found satisfactory. the petitioner states that he was not given one month's notice or even a month's salary in lieu of notice and complains that this termination of service is contrary to article 311 of the constitution of india. but, in my opinion, this termination is neither a dismissal, nor a removal within the meaning of that article. the government was perfectly within its rights in terminating the services, provided it was prepared to pay one month's salary in lieu of notice. it has been said on behalf of the government that it.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Bhimasankaram, J.

1. By an order dated 3 May 1955, the Director, Commerce and Industries Department, Hyderabad, appointed the petitioner as the manager, dyeing and printing section, in the Co-operative Work Centre, on a salary of Rs. 200 per mensem; the terms of the appointment were that he was to be on probation for six months in the first instance, and that his appointment was purely temporary and co-terminable with the scheme, or by one month's notice on either side. On 1 September 1956, his services were terminated-it being stated in the order that they were so terminated as his work was not found satisfactory. The petitioner states that he was not given one month's notice or even a month's salary in lieu of notice and complains that this termination of service is contrary to Article 311 of the Constitution of India. But, in my opinion, this termination is neither a dismissal, nor a removal within the meaning of that article. The Government was perfectly within its rights in terminating the services, provided it was prepared to pay one month's salary in lieu of notice. It has been said on behalf of the Government that it has always been prepared to do so. The mere fact that notice was not given before his services were terminated does not entitle him to say that the termination was illegal [vide Seshavataram v. State of Hyderabad 1959-II L.L.J. 277, The requirement as to notice is in 'the nature of collateral provision in the interest of both the parties and does not control the exercise of the right to terminate.'

2. It is urged, however, that as the petitioner has been asked to go out on the ground of inefficiency the termination should be treated as punishment inflicted upon him. I do not think that if the Government is entitled to terminate the service of an employee the mere fact that they say they are doing so because he is inefficient affects their right. The motive which operates upon the mind of the authority concerned is irrelevant as pointed out by the Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India 1958 S.C.J. 217 at 236 : 1958-I L.L.J. 544. If the petitioner had no right to continue in the job, the Government can, at any time, terminate his service without giving him a cause to complain under Article 311 of the Constitution. The order of the Government seems to me to be within their rights having regard to the terms of the contract of service between them and the petitioner.

3. This writ petition must be dismissed with costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //