Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

adduced on behalf of the management to show that the work of the respondent was unsatisfactory. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the management but neither uttered a word about it. Neither the Deputy General Manager nor the Joint General Manager was examined in support of the allegation. There was -also no document produced on behalf of the management to illustrate the unsatisfactory work of the respondent In her statement before the Labour Court the respondent said that she was not told in writing till April 30, 1962 that her work was not satisfactory. Mr. Sarin was her superior officer but he never expressed any. disapprobation of her work or told her that her work was not satisfactory. The Labour Court accordingly found that there Was no proof of the alleged misconduct on the part of the respondent and there was no justification for terminating her services and in face of complete absence of evidence in regard to unsatisfactory work of the respondent the discharge of the respondent from service was mala fide. We hold that the view taken by the Labour Court is correct. It was next submitted on behalf of the appellant that the amount of compensation awarded to the respondent was exorbi- tant. It was pointed out-that the respondent had worked for an actual period of less than 5 months but she had been awarded compensation of two years' salary. We think there is some substance in this criticism The Labour Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in Assam Oil Co, Ltd. v. Its workmen(1) 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 Co. 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 Co. in October 1954. "It is 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 CO. 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 5 months with the appellant. Her appointment with the appellant 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 to two years' salary. Having regard to these considerations we are of opinion that the amount of compensation awarded by (1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 457.