Petitioner: Managing Director ECIL
Defendant: B. Karunakar
(1993) 4 SCC 727
Statutes Referred-
Public Servant (Inquiries) Act, 1850
Cases Referred-
Kailash Chander Asthana Vs State of U.P (1988) 3 SCC 600
India Vs Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588
Khem Chand Vs Union of India 1958 SCR 1080
R. Venkata Rao Vs Secretary of State 1937 64 Ind.
A.N D’Silva Vs Union of India (1962) 1 SCR 968
Union of India Vs H.C Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718
State of Gujarat Vs R.G Teredesai (1970) SCR 251
U.P Govt. Vs Sabir Hussain (1975) SCR 354
Union of India Vs Tulsiram Patel (1985) SCR 131
Central Board of Excise and Customs Vs K.S. Mahalingam (1986) 3 SCC 35
Union of India Vs E. Bashyan (1988) 3 SCR 209
A.K. Kraipak Vs Union of India (1970) 1 SCR 457
Board of minimg Examination Vs Ramjee (1977) 2 SCR 904
Orissa Cement Ltd. Vs State of Orissa 1991 1 SCC 430
Facts of the Case
- The defendant was working with the organisation named ECIL where he was charged that he has passes an spurius T.V that too under the brand name of ‘Ajanta’ and this matter was reported by the defendant regarding using his brand name without permission and in result the job of the employee was on the threat that he might loose the job.
Issues Raised
- Whether the report should be furnished to the employee or not? Instead of being laying the procedure according to the rules for holding the disciplinary enquiry.
- Is the report shall be obligated when the employee asks for the same?
- Will the punishment may extent to dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or just the normal punishment?
- What will the outcome of the punishment or about the relief in such cases?
- The date of activation of the order that came into operation?
Parties Contention
Petitioner-
- The petitioner has filed the suit stating that the employee of the organisation has made a an spurious E.C T.V under the brand name of ‘Ajanta’. On which the purchaser has raised an inquiry asking about the authenticity of the T.V.
Defendant
- The defendant stated that the organisation does not have any right over the job title of the employee as he will not be entitled to fired from his job. He should be awarded with normal punishment but shall not be fired from his job.
Judgment
- The court decided that the employee should not be terminated from his job or will not be liable for any de promotion or anything.
- He shall be liable for normal imprisonment for using the company name without the prior permission of the concerned party.
- Further more the court has also decided that the use of intellectual property of the firms will not be accountable to fire someone from their jobs.
- He should be entitled with normal imprisonment and will not be accountable to any de-promotion or termination from the job.
Rule of Law
The basic law that was applicable here was that the labor laws shall be enacted properly to protect the employees from any illegal act done by the employer.
The statement has also stated that the enquiry shall not be done upon the employees.
Conclusion
To conclude the above case, the court has taken the appropriate decision of not leting the employer fire his employee and shall also not conduct an internal inquiry for the validation of the case.
By Krishna Das