THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.7575 OF 2000 ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Award dated 30.7.1999 in I.D.No.2 of 1997 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and to quash the same being arbitrary and illegal. The writ petitioner was appointed on 29.1.1995 as a Driver on daily wage basis in Banswada Depot of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. His services were terminated on the ground that he was involved in a fatal accident on 14.6.1995 and again a major accident was caused by him on 20.8.1996 in which five passengers sustained grievous injuries and the vehicle was extensively damaged. The Traffic Supervisor submitted a report holding that that the petitioner was responsible for the said accident and on the basis of the same his services were terminated by order dated 29.8.1996. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was taken up on file as I.D.No.2 of 1997 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got himself examined as W.W.1. On behalf of the Corporation, the Chief Inspector of Nizamabad Depot was examined as M.W.1 and Exs.M-1 to M-8 documents were marked. On appreciation of the said evidence, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the plea of the workman that the wiper of the bus was not functioning and the vehicle was also not in proper condition cannot be accepted and accordingly concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner and accordingly held that the order of removal was justified. Though it was contended before the Labour Court that the impugned termination was bad since the Corporation failed to issue any show- cause notice and no enquiry was conducted, the Tribunal did not accept the said contention on the ground that the petitioner was employed by the Corporation on daily wage basis and therefore he did not come within the meaning of “employee” defined under Section 3(vi) of The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (for short, ‘Regulations’). Thus, by order dated 30.7.1999 I.D.No.2 of 1997 was dismissed. The said award is challenged in the present writ petition primarily on the ground that the action of the Corporation in terminating the services of the petitioner without issuing any show-cause notice and without conducting any enquiry is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even assuming that the petitioner is not an employee as defined under Section 3 (vi) of the Regulations, the respondent Corporation is bound to comply with the principles of natural justice. In support of his submission, the learned counsel while relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. AHUJA v. STATE OF PUNJAB[1] contended that the order of removal which was admittedly passed without conducting any enquiry is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation vehemently contended that since adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner before the Tribunal to lead evidence to substantiate his case, no prejudice was caused to him for want of enquiry before passing the order of removal. In support of the said submission, the learned Standing Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in U.P. STATE SPINNINGD CO. LTD. v. R.S. PANDEY[2]. In R.S. PANDEY’S case (2 supra) the Supreme Court while dealing with a case where the enquiry officer’s report was not supplied to the delinquent employee, observed that the order of punishment should not be mechanically set aside on that ground and appropriate relief can be given only in a case of showing of prejudice having been caused to the employee. However, in the present case the order of removal was not preceded by any enquiry at all in spite of the fact that the said order was based on an allegation that the petitioner caused a major accident on account of his rash and negligent driving. In U.P. AHUJA’S case (1 supra) while considering an identical question, it was explained by the Supreme Court as under : “It is settled that, if an employee is removed by an order of removal simplicitor while he is working on casual basis or on probation, that order cannot be faulted. Even in such situation where a person is working on casual basis, a daily wager or a probationer, an order of removal if creates a stigma cannot be allowed to sustain.” The ratio laid down in the above case was followed by this Court in W.P.No.401 of 2000 dated 22.6.2000 which also related to the services under A.P. State Road Transport Corporation and the writ petition was allowed quashing the order of termination granting liberty to the respondents to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. In the said case, this Court having considered the contention on behalf of the Corporation that the Regulations of the Corporation did not contemplate an enquiry with respect to daily wage workers held that such Rules being against the principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. The petitioner herein also stands on the same footing and admittedly his services were terminated on the ground that a major accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the allegation creates a stigma for the petitioner and it is not a removal simplicitor. In the circumstances even though the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis, the Corporation is bound to give an opportunity to the petitioner to meet the allegations and appropriate action can be taken only after conducting necessary enquiry. Since no such procedure was followed, the Labour Court ought to have set aside the order of termination. The decision of the Supreme Court R.S. PANDEY’S case (2 supra) is clearly distinguishable and has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the impugned Award dated 30.7.1999 as well as the order of termination dated 29.08.1996 are hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed leaving it open to the Corporation to take appropriate action in accordance with law after conducting the necessary enquiry. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 01.05.2009 gbs [1] 2000(85) LLR 197 (SC) [2] 2006 Supreme Court Cases (L& S) 78