HAWA SINGH Vs. P O LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails an order dated 11/13th September, 1990 passed by the respondents terminating his service on the ground that termination of his service was stigmatic and could not have been effected without conduct of inquiry.

(2.) The undisputed factual matrix is that the petitioner was appointed as a driver with the Delhi Fire Service by an order dated 20th April, 1989 on two years probation. The petitioner contends that while so posted at. the Kirti Nagar fire service station on 4th October, 1989 a call was received with regard to the occurrence of a fire in the factory. While the petitioner was driving a fire truck, the petitioner was compelled to swerve as an auto rickshaw had come in the wrong direction from the wrong side and to avoid this vehicle, the petitioner was compelled to move the fire truck. As a result, the fire vehicle had overturned. The vehicle was damaged and there was a loss to the tune of Rs. 1,65,000/- to the management.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that the respondents were persuaded by this accident to pass the order of termination of his service on 11/13th September, 1990 and consequently this termination which was effected without an inquiry was stigmatic and illegal. In this behalf, reliance is placed on judicial pronouncement reported in 1991 3 SCC 291, Om Prakash Goel v. H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.,1992 (5) SLR 661 entitled Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore v. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar and Another. The petitioner also places reliance on II (2003) SLT 323= AIR 2003 SC 1789 entitled Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. & Others to contend that even if the order of termination did not mention any reasons which could be considered stigmatic, but from an examination of the background and at tendant circumstances, a conclusion could be arrived at that the alleged misconduct was the real basis and design to terminate the services of a probationer. In such circumstances, the order of termination of the services of the probationer would not be legally sustainable.