Delhi High Court
Shri Ram Chander vs Union Of India on 2 August, 2010
Author: Manmohan
#57
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 528/2010
SHRI RAM CHANDER ..... Appellant
Through Ms. Meenu Mainee, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Jaswinder Singh with
Mr. Gitanju Suraj, Advocates
% Date of Decision : 2nd August, 2010
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No.
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
CM 13543/2010
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
LPA 528/2010 & CM 13542/2010
1. Present appeal has been filed under the Letters Patent challenging
the judgment dated 1st July, 2010 in WP(C) 4870/1998 whereby though
the learned Single Judge has held the appellant's termination as illegal,
unfair and unjust, yet not granted the relief of reinstatement.
2. Ms. Meenu Mainee, learned counsel for appellant submitted that
the appellant's services could not have been terminated without inquiry
by order dated 2nd November, 1988 as it was the case of the respondent
before the Industrial Tribunal that the workman was indisciplined and
rude. She further submitted that the respondent could not have
terminated the services of appellant as he was working as Fork Lift
Operator against a regular and sanctioned post.
3. In the present case, we find that the appellant was not appointed
as a Fork Lift Operator against a regular and sanctioned post. In fact,
the appointment letter reads as under :-
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
New Mint Project,
B-102-B, Sector 27,
Noida (Ghaziabad)
No. NM/Pers/96/87/3332. Dated : 21.12.87
ORDER
Shri Ram Chander S/o Shri Ishwar Singh is being
appointed as Fork Lift Operator (Grade-III) in the pay scale
of Rs. 800-1150 w.e.f. 21.12.87. His appointment will be
purely on adhoc basis and in a temporary capacity till further
orders.
2. He will draw an initial salary of Rs. 800/- plus usual
allowances as admissible from time to time.
Sd:
for General Manager
21/12/87
4. We are also in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the
termination of services of a temporary servant/probationer, like the
appellant, on the basis of adverse entries will not be punitive inasmuch
as such facts were merely a motive and not the foundation of the order.
In fact, it is settled law that if the termination is founded on misconduct,
then termination order could not have been passed without inquiry.
However, if misconduct is the motive that prompted the termination
order, then no inquiry is required.
5. Moreover, from a perusal of the impugned order, we find that the
learned Single Judge has given cogent reasons for not considering the
relief of reinstatement. The relevant portion of the impugned order is
reproduced hereinbelow :-
"14. Be that as it may, Section 25F having not been
complied with, the award holding the termination bad is
upheld. The question still remains whether a temporary
employee should be granted the relief of reinstatement with
back wages for the technical defect in order of his
termination, of non compliance with Section 25F. Such non
compliance also was limited to non-payment of retrenchment
compensation only inasmuch as one month's salary in lieu of
notice is payable under Rule 5 (supra) also and was paid.
The respondent no. 2 workman had worked for one year only
and the retrenchment compensation payable was of 15 days'
wages only. Even upon reinstatement the status of
respondent no. 2 workman would have remained as
temporary only and the petitioner employer would have been
entitled to again terminate his employment by complying with
Section 25F. Though the respondent no. 2 workman has
contended that he was employed after being interviewed and
against a post but in view of the letter of appointment clearly
providing that the employment was temporary, no credence
can be given to such pleas; there can be a procedure for
temporary appointment also and merely because such
procedure is followed will not change the temporary status.
15. More than twenty three years have elapsed since the
order of termination. Considering all the aforesaid facts, the
relief granted by the Industrial Tribunal of reinstatement with
full back wages is not found appropriate. The award to that
extent is modified. Instead of relief of reinstatement with full
back wages, the respondent no. 2 workman is granted the
relief of compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back
wages of Rs. 1 lakh."
6. Consequently, we find no ground to interfere with the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. Accordingly, the present appeal and application are dismissed in
limine but with no order as to costs.
MANMOHAN, J
CHIEF JUSTICE
AUGUST 2, 2010
rn/js
