DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant in this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent has impugned the judgment and order dated 24th August, 1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in Civil Writ Petition No. 36 of 1971. By the impugned judgment and order, it was directed that the Award dated 16th July, 1970 passed by Respondent No. 1, the Industrial Tribunal be set aside and it was held that the termination of the services of Respondent No. 2 Workman was void ab initio and inoperative. The learned Single Judge further directed that the workman continues in service with consequential benefits, namely, full back wages.

(2.) The Workman was initially employed by the Appellant as a Retainer Crew Conductor on 25th February, 1966. He was thereafter appointed on 2nd November, 1966 as a Conductor on probation for one year. The probation period was extended till 31st October, 1968. On 29th/30th October, 1968 the services of the Workman were terminated by the Appellant in exercise of powers conferred by Regulation 9(a)(i) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (for short the Regulations). No reasons were assigned for the termination as indeed they were not required to be assigned. Regulation 9(a) of the Regulations reads as follows:

(3.) It, may be mentioned, en passant, that learned Counsel for the Appellant insisted on saying that the services of the Workman were not terminated but that his services were not confirmed. However, the letter dated 29th/30th October, 1968 unambiguously states that "The services...are hereby terminated with effect from 31.10.1968...under Clause 9(a)(i) of the D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952." As noticed above, text of the said clause also uses the word `termination'.