The respondent entered into the service of the appellants on December 9, 1961 at a monthly salary of Rs. 400. On April 30, 1962 she was given notice of termination of her services. She thereupon raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Government of Orissa to an Industrial Tribunal. The respondent alleged before the Tribunal thal the termination of her services was improper, ma/a fide and an act of victimisation. The case of the ,appellant was that the respondent had been appointed on probation for six months, and her work having been found unsatisfactory •he had been discharged in terms of the contract. The Tribunal held that the termination of the respondent's services was ma/a fide and awarded her two years salary, namely Rs. 9,600 as compensation, fo appeal to this Court on jx,half of the management by special leave. HELD : (i) If the discharge of an employee has been ordered by the management in bona fide exercise of its power, the Industrial Tribunal will not interfe:re with it, but it is open to the Industrial Tribunal to consider whethe:r .the order of termination is ma/a fide or whether it amounts to victimisation of the employee or an unfair labour practice: or is so capricious or unreasonable as could lead to the inference that it had been passed for ulterior motives and not in bona fide exercise of the power arising out of the contract. In such a case it is open to the Tribunal to interfere with the order of the management and to afford proper relief to the employee. [437 C-EJ (ii) The respondent could not be said to have been discharged in the terms of the contract. There was no Standing Order of the company with regard to punishment for misconduct. In the absence of any Standing Order the unsatisfactory work of an employee may be treated as misconduct. When the management discharged the respondent for alleged unsatisfactory work it should be taken that the discharge was tantamount to punishment for alleged misconduct. If this was so, the management was not justified in discharging the respondent without holding proper enquiry. Even before the Labour Court no evidence was adduced by the management to show that the work of the respondent was unsatisfactory. In these circumstances the discharge of the respon- dent was ma/a fide and she was entitled to compensation. [437 F-H] (iii) There were no special circumstances in the case to justify the award of two years' salary as compensation. It was sufficie.nt to award Rs. 4,800. [439 A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 581 of 1964.
