Delhi High Court
Satya Vir Singh S/O Shri Ram Narain vs Delhi Transport Corporation on 19 October, 2006
Author: S N Dhingra
Bench: S N Dhingra
JUDGMENT
Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 10.11.2004 whereby the reference was answered against the petitioner.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner joined respondent on 17.6.1981 as a daily wager. The petitioner's appointment was made on monthly wages basis on 17.12.1981 and he was put on probation. The letter of appointment dated 13.1.1982 shows that the period of probation was initially to be one year, it could be extended up to two years. During the probation period the service of petitioner could be terminated at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. The case of petitioner for regular employment was to be considered after completion of probation period satisfactorily. And the probation was to come to an end on issuance of a notification to this effect from the office. Petitioner committed accidents during his probation period, one of which was fatal. One accident was under Section 279/337 and the other under Section 279/338 and a fatal accident wherein one person was killed under Section 279/304A FIR 762/82 was registered against the petitioner. Service of petitioner was terminated vide order dated 6.1.1983 in terms of the appointment letter without assigning any reason since he was on probation. He was asked to deposit the articles of DTC in his possession. The petitioner was acquitted from the criminal case on 22.2.1991 and thereafter he raised an industrial dispute in 1994 which was referred on 25.3.1994 to the Labour Court to the following effect:
Whether the services of Sh. Satyvir Singh have been terminated illegally and for unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions necessary in this respect
3. The Labour Court after recording evidence and appreciating evidence came to the conclusion that the action of the management was as per law. The workman was on probation and had committed fatal accidents, DTC was within its right to terminate his services under clause 9(a)(1) of DRT Act.
4. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the order of the Tribunal on the ground that the probation period of the petitioner had expired on 16.12.1982 and he has to be regularized from 17.12.1982. The Tribunal did not consider this fact and did not appreciate that the petitioner was acquitted by the criminal court in the case under Section 279/304A IPC. Further it was pleaded that clause 9(a)(i) of DRT Act has been held to be invalid by Supreme Court in DTC v. Mazdoor Congress and Ors. AIR 1993 SC 101.
5. The petitioner's contention that his probation had come to an end is without any basis. The petitioner, along with petition filed a photocopy and a typed copy of the appointment letter, because the photocopy filed by him was not a clear copy. However, while filing typed copy, the petitioner changed the language of the appointment letter. While it was mentioned in the original appointment letter that the probation period would come to an end satisfactorily when a notification to this effect is issued by the office, the petitioner changed the language in the typed copy so as to read that the period of probation shall be completed satisfactorily without a notification to this effect. The petitioner's plea that his probation had come to an end, is a fallacy. It is settled law that probation period does not come to an end automatically and it comes to end when a notification to this effect is issued or a letter to this effect is given to the employee.
6. The petitioner was on probation. The probation itself means that the work of the petitioner was to be checked and watched and if the petitioner was not found fit for the job, he could be shown the door. The petitioner caused a fatal accident as a driver. One person was killed. Apart from fatal accident, he was also involved in other accidents under Sections 279/337/338 and had damaged the bus. Considering the involvement of the petitioner in accidents if the management had decided to bring to an end the services of the petitioner during probation period, no fault could be found with the management. DTC employees have to run the public transport buses. The safety of passengers and the persons traveling on the road is to be the prime concern of DTC and if a driver during probation period kills somebody in an accident, DTC is not obliged to keep such a driver as his employee in service and his service can be terminated without any further enquiry. The order of termination is a simpliciter order of termination and does not give any reason and does not cast any stigma. There was no necessity for DTC to hold an enquiry before termination of the petitioner, who was on probation, if the termination was done simpliciter without, mentioning any misconduct .
7. Whether services of the petitioner were terminated according to Rule 9(a)(i) or not is not material. This was one of the conditions of the appointment letter that services of the petitioner could be terminated during probation period without notice and without assigning any reason. Court cannot thrust incompetent drivers on DTC neither DTC can be compelled to keep incompetent drivers. If DTC has no authority to terminate a person on probation, the probation itself becomes meaningless. The very purpose of putting a person on probation is to see whether he is fit for the job or not. A driver, who commits accidents cannot be considered to be fit for the job.
8. Accordingly, I find no infirmity in the award. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
