WORKERS EMPLOYED IN HIRAKUD DAM versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

WORKERS EMPLOYED IN HIRAKUD DAM versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

The term 'dismissal' in paragraph 11 of the Central Public Works Department Code, 1929, has not been used to refer only to termination by way of punishment for serious misconduct; it includes termination of services simpliciter before the completion of work, provided one month's notice or pay in lieu is given. Therefore, the State was justified in terminating the services of the employees under the Code.

Parties
Appellant: Workers Employed in Hirakud Dam; Respondent No. 1: State of Orissa; Respondent No. 2: Another (unspecified)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 February 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated April 5, 1968, Orissa High Court (o.j.c. No. 58 of 1965)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Interpretation of Employment Codes, Meaning of 'dismissal', Conditions of Service
Labour Law Administrative Law Termination of Employment Interpretation of Employment Codes Meaning of 'dismissal' Conditions of Service

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Workers Employed in Hirakud Dam

Appellant

State of Orissa

Respondent No. 1

Another (unspecified)

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated April 5, 1968, Orissa High Court (o.j.c. No. 58 of 1965)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the word 'dismissal' in paragraph 11 of the Central Public Works Department Code, 1929, refers only to termination by way of punishment for serious misconduct or also includes termination simpliciter (not by way of punishment) before completion of work.

Ratio Decidendi

The term 'dismissal' in paragraph 11 of the Central Public Works Department Code, 1929, has not been used to refer only to termination by way of punishment for serious misconduct; it includes termination of services simpliciter before the completion of work, provided one month's notice or pay in lieu is given. Therefore, the State was justified in terminating the services of the employees under the Code.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.