LPA 528/2010 Page 1 of 4 #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. J U D G M E N T 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 LPA 528/2010 Page 2 of 4 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 O R D E R 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. LPA 528/2010 Page 3 of 4 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.” LPA 528/2010 Page 4 of 4 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