Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The only question, therefore, which survives is whether the order of reinstatement can be said to be improper as urged by counsel.

6. The normal rule is that in oases of invalid orders of dismissal industrial adjudication would direct reinstatement of a dismissed employee. Nevertheless, there would be cases when it would not be expedient to adopt such a course. Where, for instance, the office of the employer was comparatively a small one and the dismissed employee held the position of the secretary, a position of confidence and trust, and the employer had lost confidence in the concerned employee, reinstatement was hold to be not fair to either party, See Assam Oil Company, Ltd. v. Us workmen 1980-I L.L.J. 687. Similarly, in Utkal Machinery, Ltd. v. Miss Santi Patnaik 1966-I L.L. J. 398 the employee, held to have boon wrongfully dismissed, was the secretary to the general manager of the appellant-company. The management alleged, as has been done in the instant case, that she was appointed on probation for six months, that her work was found unsatisfactory and was, therefore, discharged in terms of the contract of service. The tribunal did not accept the company's case and held that its order of discharge amounted to dismissal which was wrongful an no enquiry giving her the opportunity of being heard wan hold. But, considering her employment as the secretary, the tribunal did not order reinstatement and instead directed the company to pay compensation equivalent to two years' salary. On a contention that the compensation was exorbitant, this Court, on appeal, reduced the amount of compensation to one year's salary on the ground that there were no special circumstances to warrant the award of two years' salary as compensation. Explaining the case of Assam Oil Company 1960-I L L. J. 687 (vide supra), where the Court had awarded compensation of Rs. 12,500, which was equivalent to two years' salary, the Court observed at p. 401 as follows:

...The labour court has relied upon the decision of this Court in Assam Oil Company, Ltd. v. its workmen 1960-I L.L. J. 587 (vide supra) but the material facts of that case were different from those in the present case. In that case the aggrieved employee, Miss Scott, was in the employment of the Assam Oil Company, Ltd., for about two years before the termination of her services. It also appears that MISS Scott was in the service of Burmah-Shell as a lady secretary before she entered the service of Assam Oil Company in October 1954. It la also important to notice that the amount of compensation in that case was fixed on a concession of the Solicitor-General who appeared on behalf of the Assam Oil Company. In the present case, the respondent did not give up any previous job in order to take service under the appellant. She had worked for a period of about five months with the appellant. Her appointment with the appellant also was somewhat unusual, because it was made on the recommendation of Sri B. Patnaik, the then Chief Minister of Orissa. There are no special circumstances for awarding compensation equal to two years' salary.