In Re: M. Gnanendra

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Andhra Pradesh Decided Jan 30, 1989

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/431661

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/431661
Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judge: Jagannadha Rao, J.
Decided On: Jan 30, 1989
Case Number: W.P. 1192 of 1989
Subject: Labour and Industrial
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Labour and Industrial - suspension - respondent issued a charge memo and kept petitioner on put off duty - petitioner was alleged to be involved in cash and ticket irregularities - petitioner contended that there is no provision to keep him under put off duty - petitioner was an employee on daily wages - management ...

Key legal issue: Labour and Industrial
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Andhra Pradesh Industrial Standing Orders and Rules

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: M. Gnanendra

Advocate Syed Shareef Ahmed, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Andhra Pradesh Industrial Standing Orders and Rules
Reported In: (1994)IIILLJ124AP

Excerpt

.....that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the act. thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in section 2(xv) of the act. whatever products are declared as such by the government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the act. consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under section 3(1) read with section 3(3) of the act on them it is competent for the government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [per p.s. narayana, j,(dissenting)]if livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. in view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. sections 4 & 3: [v.v.s. rao, n.v. ramana & p.s. narayana, jj] declaration of notified area held, it is only under section 3 that government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. it is very conspicuous that section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing..........learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision in any of the rules made by the corporation permitting them to keep the petitioner on put-off duty.2. the learned counsel also referred to certain a.p. industrial standing orders and rules but failed to bring to my notice any particular rules which prohibits the passing of an order like the one impugned in this case.3. the submission of the learned counsel that there is no provision in any of the rules made by the corporation permitting the corporation to keep the employee on put-off duty, is in my opinion, not correct. the petitioner is engaged on daily wages and if he commits any misconduct and the management wants to take any disciplinary action it is certainly open to them to ask the petitioner not to attend duty. it is one of the privileges of any master to require his servant not to attend duty. it is one of the privileges of any master to require his servant not to attend duties pending enquiry. no specific power in that behalf is necessary. if the employee is employed on a temporary or regular basis under a particular pay, the order of suspension pending enquiry will not preclude the employee from getting wages attached to the post subject to any rules permitting payment of suspension allowance only. the relationship of master and servant still continues unless the same is terminated by passing any order of punishment which has that effect. in the present case the order of the corporation keeping the petitioner on put-off duty is in the nature of an order of suspension pending enquiry. if the petitioner was a temporary or regular employee, the management could have used to work 'suspension pending enquiry' but inasmuch as the petitioner is working on daily wages, the management is using the word 'put- off duty'. no prior notice is necessary before placing a person under put-off duty. the position is similar to a case where a person is placed under suspension pending enquiry and.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

Jagannadha Rao, J.

1. The petitioner is an employee on daily wages, and in connection with certain conduct, the Corporation decided to take disciplinary action. They issued a charge memo on 24.12.1988. Simultaneously they passed the impugned order dated 24.12.1988 which reads as follows:-

'Pending disciplinary action Sri M. Gnanendra, E.503782, casual Conductor of Giddalur depot who was involved in Cash and ticket irregularities case on 19.12.1988 and has been placed under 'Depot Spare', is hereby kept under Put-Off duty with immediate effect'.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no provision in any of the rules made by the Corporation permitting them to keep the petitioner on Put-Off duty.

2. The learned counsel also referred to certain A.P. Industrial Standing Orders and Rules but failed to bring to my notice any particular rules which prohibits the passing of an order like the one impugned in this case.

3. The submission of the learned counsel that there is no provision in any of the rules made by the Corporation permitting the Corporation to keep the employee on Put-Off duty, is in my opinion, not correct. The petitioner is engaged on daily wages and if he commits any misconduct and the management wants to take any disciplinary action it is certainly open to them to ask the petitioner not to attend duty. It is one of the privileges of any master to require his servant not to attend duty. It is one of the privileges of any master to require his servant not to attend duties pending enquiry. No specific power in that behalf is necessary. If the employee is employed on a temporary or regular basis under a particular pay, the order of suspension pending enquiry will not preclude the employee from getting wages attached to the post subject to any rules permitting payment of suspension allowance only. The relationship of master and servant still continues unless the same is terminated by passing any order of punishment which has that effect. In the present case the order of the Corporation keeping the petitioner on Put-Off duty is in the nature of an order of suspension pending enquiry. If the petitioner was a temporary or regular employee, the management could have used to work 'suspension pending enquiry' but inasmuch as the petitioner is working on daily wages, the management is using the word 'Put- Off duty'. No prior notice is necessary before placing a person under Put-Off duty. The position is similar to a case where a person is placed under suspension pending enquiry and for such an action, no prior notice is necessary. The notice or enquiry is post -decisional in the sense that after the suspension starts or after the Put-Off duty comes into force, the employee will have an opportunity in the main enquiry to establish that the charges are false. No enquiry is contemplated before issuing an order of suspension pending enquiry or Put-Off duty. No rule is also necessary to keep a person under Put-Off duty and it is, in my opinion, inherent in the relationship of master and servant. There are no merits in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Andhra Pradesh · 1989 Same Parties In Re: M. Gnanendra vs Same Subject Labour and Industrial Same Judge Jagannadha Rao, J. Acts & Sections Andhra Pradesh Industrial Standing Orders and Rules

Labour and Industrial

In Re: M. Gnanendra

Brief this judgment before chambers

Case Summary

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Legal References

Excerpt

Full Judgment

Jagannadha Rao, J.

Continue Your Research

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.