IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9459 of 2011 Date of decision : 26.5.2011 Malkiat Singh ....Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal dated 8.11.2010. The reference which he claims to the following effect was declined by the Tribunal :- “Whether the services of Shri Malkiat Singh Ex-Driver No.586, CTU Depot No.II, r/o village Kante, Tehsil Haroli, Post Office Bhadhauri, District Una, Himachal Pradesh were terminated illegally by the management of the Director Transport, CTU, U.T., Chandigarh; (2) The Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration Chandigarh, if so, to what effect and to what relief he is entitled to, if any?” C.W.P.No.9459 of 2011 -2- He was appointed as a driver on 24.8.2001 and according to the terms of the appointment letter he was on probation for a period of two years and his services were liable to be terminated any time without notice and without assigning any reason. His appointment was also subject to verification of the character and antecedents. Clauses 2 and 3 which are relevant are extracted as under :- “2. They will be on Probation for two years which can be extended by one year as per CTU Department (Class-III) Recruitment Rules, 1974. During the period of probation, their services are liable to be terminated any time without notice and without assigning any reason. 3.Their appointment is subject to verification of their character and antecedents.” The respondents terminated his services during the probation period as the petitioner misconducted himself and while plying the bus on a particular route deviated therefrom on his own. The respondents also found that on a prior occasion his services had been dispensed with by the very same department and this fact was not disclosed to them when the petitioner competed in open selection second time and even thereafter when he got the employment. On due consideration of the matter, I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal on two counts – one for concealment of the fact of termination of employment and second that his work and conduct was not found satisfactory, and for the simple reason that both these accusations against the petitioner are squarely covered by the terms of the employment which lay down C.W.P.No.9459 of 2011 -3- that his services are liable to be terminated any time without notice and without assigning any reason and that his appointment was subject to verification of character and antecedents. A perusal of Annexure P-2, which is an affidavit furnished by the petitioner at the time of getting appointment, further shows that he had categorically stated on oath that he had never been dismissed/removed/resigned from service from any of department of State/Central Govt. of India prior to his joining/appointment in C.T.U. In the capacity of a driver, which fact was totally erroneous. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. 26.5.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss