Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The reliefs that could be granted were substantially in the same terms as in paragraph (D) of the Act, but in sub- section (3) of section 16 of the Berar Act there is no provision regarding the fault or misconduct coming to the notice of the employer, as in clause (i) of paragraph (D) of the Act. From the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, we find that a workman was dismissed for misconduct on August 23, 1956. The allegations of misconduct related to embezzlement of three sums of money. The last item of embezzlement was on June 28, 1955. The Labour Commissioner, whose jurisdiction was invoked by the workman, took the view that the employer came to know of the misconduct only on April 9, 1956 when the auditor's report was received and hence the order of dismissal had been properly passed within six months from the date of knowledge. On a revision being filed by the workman, the State Industrial Court reversed the decision of the Labour Commissioner and set aside the order of dismissal holding that the question of knowledge does not come into the picture in view of the clear terms of sub-section (3). The employer challenged this decision before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of- the Constitution. The only contention that was raised before the High Court, as is seen from the judgment, was that section 16(3) should be liberally construed by allowing ,the management to establish that they obtained knowledge of the embezzlement only within a period of six months prior to passing the order of dismissal. The High Court rejected this contention on the ground that the statute is clear and that an employer cannot be permitted to put forward their own inaction, in defence. Another reason given by the High Court for rejecting this contention was that the statute has prescribed a period of limitation for determining the services of a delinquent employee as a measure of punishment and that such a period of limitation cannot be enlarged or extended by a court. The contention that has; been placed before us on behalf of the appellant regarding the interpretation to be placed on clause (i) of paragraph (D) of the Act, was not pleaded before the High Court. In the Act, there is a clear provision regarding the misconduct coming to the notice of the employer. A similar provision was not in the Berar Act. The High Court has interpreted Section 16(3) in isolation without having due regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which the said section occurs. The same principles laid down by is for interpreting section 78(1)(D)(i) of the Act should have been borne in mind in interpreting section 16(3) of the Berar Act also. For instance, in a particular case, an employer may be able to satisfy the Tribunal that he had been kept out of knowledge of the misconduct due to the fraud of the opposite party and, therefore, he came to know of the said misconduct only within a period of six months prior to the date of passing the order. Similarly, an employer may also be able to satisfy the Tribunal about the reasons for the delay caused in passing the orders. These and similar circumstances have not been considered by the High Court. The view of the High Court that the provision in section 16(3) is a period of limitation is erroneous. As we are of the opinion that the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court is erroneous, the support sought by the Labour Court on this decision is of no avail.