CWP No.14830 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14830 of 1990 Date of Decision: 13.05.2011 Nazar Singh … Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Amritsar and Ors. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order of removal from employment of a person, who was appointed on a temporary basis as Bus Conductor in the Punjab Roadways. The order of the appointment and written statement shows that his appointment was temporary and his services could be terminated at any time without any notice. He was terminated from service on 15.07.1983, which was challenged before the Labour Court on a reference made by the State. The petitioner’s plea was that the termination was not in consonance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the termination was effected without constituting any inquiry or serving notice. The defence was that it was discharge of service of petitioner simpliciter and the CWP No.14830 of 1990 -2- termination did not take operate as retrenchment for which a notice was necessary to issue under Section 25-F of the Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that although the order of termination reads like that it is a termination simpliciter, it was done pursuant to a report secured from the Inspector in which it was alleged to have been found that he had charged 10 times of the fare and he had also several unpunched tickets, which were seized from the Conductor. There was an endorsement to the report by General Manager stating that the Conductor had ‘committed serious misconduct fraud removed’. Learned counsel states that the termination followed an endorsement by the General Manager that he had committed fraud and such termination actually concealed what went in the mind of the Management and how it was taking a decision that he has committed fraud without involving him in any inquiry pertaining to the same. 3. I find no reason to examine the situation that it was not termination simpliciter. A person in Government service could not have been recruited otherwise than under relevant rules. If he had been appointed in the suspension vacancy of another employee, the termination was possible when the suspended employee had returned to his service and service of the petitioner became superfluous. The term ‘retrenchment’ admits of some exception. The Industrial Disputes Act defines it thus under: “2(oo) ‘Retrenchment’ means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include - (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of CWP No.14830 of 1990 -3- employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health.” 4. In my view, the termination of a person, who is appointed on a particular post temporarily, liable for removal on the happening of a contingency or a stipulation mention in that behalf, in the order of appointment does not amount to retrenchment. Stipulation provided for termination without any further notice. He had not held appointment to a regular post and, therefore, the disengagement of the service of a person appointed on a vacancy created by suspension did not amount to retrenchment at all. The petitioner could have no complaint for absence of notice under Section 25-F and I do not find any error in the order passed by the Labour Court. 5. The award is confirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. MAY 13, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE