J K THAKUR Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 22.9.1987 terminating the services of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The petitioner was employed as a daily wager on 18.6.1980 at Group D post. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner right from the date of his appointment was given the duties attached to the post of Assistant Grade III. The petitioner has been representing to the respondent that he may be given the daily wage according to rates applicable to the post of Assistant Grade III. It has also been contended by Mr.Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner submitted representations after representations for grant of Assistant Grade III to the petitioner, which was rejected by the respondent. On the representation dated 5.1.1985 of the petitoner respondent admitted that on account of paucity of Assistant Grade III, the petitioner was deployed on diary/despatch work. As a matter of fact in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it has been stated that the petitioner was given the duties of AG-III continuously from 17th December, 1984 and was paid from that date daily wages as permissible to AG-III. It is the case of the petitioner that in the meanwhile, he passed the typing test and he ought to have been regularised as Assistant Grade III. He has further contended that persons who were junior to him were appointed as AG-III and their services were regularised. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner's services were not regularised on the pretext that one Rajinder Bist who was working as class IV employee with the respondent had filed a writ petition in the High Court (CW 377/85), challenging the regularisation of the persons who were junior to the petitioner and on account of interim order passed by the High Court, the petitioner was not regularised. The services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground that he had accepted Rs.150.00 from one M/s S.R. Chadha & Sons. It is the case of the petitioner that no such money was recovered from him, no inquiry was instituted against the petitioner and as a matter of fact money was actually recovered from the bunch of bills where the money was hidden and was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. Mr.Gupta has vehemently contended that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and no inquiry was held, the termination of the services of the petitioner were illegal. He has further contended that as a matter of fact, the persons who were junior to the petitioner were employed as daily wager and their services were regularised as Assistant Grade III and the services of the petitioner could not be terminated without first regularising him as AG-III and without affording him an opportunity of being heard. It has been contended that for all purposes, the petitioner was the regular employee having served the respondent from 1980 till 1987 when his services were terminated. He has further contended that no notice in terms of Section 25 (f) of the Industrial Disputes Act was given by the respondent. Mr.Gupta has contended that the order of termination was not an order of termination simpliciter. The foundation of the order rested on the report of two officers who alleged that currency notes of Rs.150.00 were found from the possession of the petitioner.

(2.) Mr.Gupta has contended that if an order though apparently looking innocuous whose foundation is based on misconduct is passed by the employer opportunity of being heard, a show cause notice or a preliminary enquiry was to be held by the respondent which was admittedly not held by the respondent. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P & T Department through Bhartiya Dak Tar Mazdoor Manch Vs.Union of India and others AIR 1987 SC 2342, Anoop Jaiswal Vs.Govt. of India and another AIR 1984 SC 636, Jarnail Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others AIR 1986 SC 1626, Smt.Rajinder Kaur Vs.Punjab State and another AIR 1986 SC 1790, Appar Apar Singh Vs.State of Punjab & others 1971 (2) SLR 71, K.H. Phadnis Vs.State of Maharashtra 1971 (2) SLR 345 and Madan Mohan Prasad Vs.State of Bihar 1973 (1) SLR 630.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent, Ms.Salwan has contended that the petitioner was a temporary employee. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that in terms of the order dated 23.4.1985, which was issued in relation to the class of employees like the petitioner, the appointment was purely on temporary basis and the services were liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason thereof in accordance with the conditions mentioned in the offer of appointment. She contended that DSIDC Service Regulation, Rule 2 (h) which defines employee is as under :