Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.15 seconds)Section 241 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
Madhosingh Daulatsingh vs State Of Bombay on 13 July, 1959
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners however contends that these are nor proper tests and that the proper test is that laid down in laws v. London Chronicle, Ltd. According to the learned counsel, the test there laid down is that the misconduct must be inconsistent with the fulfilment of the express or implied conditions of service or such as to show that the servant has disregarded the essential conditions of the contract of service. No doubt the expression "whether the conduct complained of is such as to show the servant to have disregarded the essential conditions of the contract of service" is used in this case. This was a case of alleged act of disobedience on the part of an employee Miss Jean Maude who had been employed as an advertisement representative by a company. It was alleged that she left the conference room in deflance of the manager's request to remain at the conference room, and it was held that wilful disobedience to the lawful and reasonable order of the master justified summary dismissal. It was also held that the servant can be dismissed if he is habitually negligent in respect of his duties for which he was engaged, but that for a single instance of insolence in the case of a servant in such a position as that of a newspaper critic, dismissal was hardly justified. It was also observed in that case as follows :-
1