IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1829 of 2000 Date of decision: 07.08.2009 Harbans Lal …Petitioner versus The Labour Court, Jalandhar and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present: Ms.Poonam Sambra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Monica Chhibbar Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? K.Kannan, J.(Oral) 1. The order of termination that is challenged is a case of a conductor who had joined the services on 17.09.1981 and he was directed to be discharged on 07.12.1981. He was admittedly a temporary employee and the direction had been made even before the completion of 90 days. He had preferred an intra-departmental appeal where the appellate authority observed that he was found to be negligent in not having issued tickets to passengers and even within such a short time if he had not conducted properly, his removal was proper and just. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that although he was a temporary employee and the order of the appellate Civil Writ Petition No.1829 of 2000 - 2 - authority itself shows that it was not merely a case of removal simpliciter, it was as a measure of punishment for an alleged misconduct. The learned counsel would fervently plead that protection under law against removal shall avail even to a temporary workman if an aspersion is cast on an employee before the termination is effected. 2. While as a general principle of law, it could be noted that even a temporary employee cannot be terminated as a measure of punishment without an appropriate enquiry, I do not propose to interfere with the ultimate decision taken in view of the fact that there is no statutory violation itself that is complained of for a person who had not completed 240 days shall not entitled to any protection under Section 25-F. The argument of violation of principles of natural justice could be rooted in appropriate cases where very serious hardship is shown and an unreasonable attitude is exhibited by the management before terminating the services. A conductor that had not done even 90 days of service, if he was shown to have been negligent, it cannot be stated that any aspersion is cast. After all even the order of removal at the first instance does not cast any aspersion. The petitioner has literally invited a disclosure of what went in the mind of the authorities in his appeal and if there was a method of jettisoning a temporary employee so long as no statutory violation could be shown, there would be no ground for interference. The employer shall be the only most eminent person to study the suitability of a workman during temporary service or when he is under probation. So long as no malafides could be attributed, the Court shall not interfere with a simpliciter removal (State of Punjab Vs. Civil Writ Petition No.1829 of 2000 - 3 - Sukhwider Singh-(2005) 5 SCC 569. The Labour Court had already taken a view that the workman was not entitled to any relief and a consideration that has been made in the award requires no interference in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 07.08.2009 sanjeev