You can grab notes for other topics from here.
- The appellant Shri S.K. Maini was working as the Shop Manager of the respondent-Company M/s Carona Sahu Company Limited. On an allegation of misconduct against the appellant, a domestic enquiry was caused by the respondent-Company and by order dated March, 1981 the service of the appellant was terminated.
- The questions to be answered here are, whether the termination of service of Shri S.K. Maini is justified? If not, to what relief and amount of compensation is he entitled?
- It was contended that S.K. Maini was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) because being a Shop Manager, he was discharging mainly managerial and administrative functions and had been supervising the works of other employees subordinate to him for running the said shop.
- Maini, under the terms and conditions of service, was to be held responsible for any loss suffered by the Company due to deterioration of the quality of the stock and loss of any of the other articles lying in the shop caused by reason of any act of negligence and / or omission to take any precaution by the employees. Mr. Maini was also required to notify the Company not later than three hours after the discovery in the said shop of any fire, theft, burglary, loot or arson. He was required to investigate into the matter immediately and get the cause and amount of loss established by local authorities. Mr. Maini as in- charge of the shop was required to keep and maintain proper accounts as approved by the Company indicating the exact amount to be paid from the receipts from the respective staff.
- Also, in the event of a salesman being absent, the shop in-charge was empowered to appoint temporary helper. Such functions appear to be administrative and managerial. By virtue of his being in-charge of the shop, he was the principal officer-in-charge of the management of the shop. Even if he was required to do some works of clerical nature, by and large he was discharging administrative and managerial work. Shri Maini was authorized to take decisions in the matter of temporary appointments and all reasonable steps incidental to the proper running of the shop. The High Court was justified in holding that the appellant was not a workman.
You can grab notes for other topics from here.
