LALJIBHAI R SOALNKI Vs. DIVISIONAL DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this petition against the respondent above named under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order at Annexure 'A' terminating the services of the petitioner and also striking off the name of the petitioner from the waiting list of the bus conductors as well as for directing the respondent corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service as Bus Conductor on daily wages without any backwages. The facts may be briefly stated as follows:

(2.) The petitioner was working as badali bus conductor in the employment of the respondent Corporation which is incorporated under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It was found on 8.4.1976 that when the petitioner was working as badali Bus Conductor in a bus belonging to the respondent, he had not issued tickets to some passengers and had also not collected fares from them. Thereafter, the respondent passed order dated 24.8.1976 placed at Annexure 'A' deleting his name from the waiting list prepared by the respondent for recruiting candidates on the post of bus conductor in the employment of the respondent. Though the order was passed on 24.8.1976 for deleting the name of the petitioner from the waiting list, the petitioner remained at home for about 10 years or little over and thereafter, he approached the Government Labour Officer at Vadodara for making reference to the Labour Court for challenging the order of his termination from service. The said application was made on 25.9.1986, which is placed at Annexure 'B' at page 11. Thereafter, it appears that the Government Labour Officer, Vadodara had called the petitioner for discussion and conciliation and thereafter, he passed order that since the name of the petitioner was deleted 10 years back and since he had not completed the required number of days in the employment of the respondent and since no reasonable explanation was afforded for the delay of 10 years, there was no reason to refer the matter to the Labour Court and accordingly the Government Labour Officer, Vadodara directed that the matter may be treated as closed. The said order was passed on 21.10.1986, which is placed at Annexure 'C'. Thereafter the petitioner issued notice to the respondent on 17.11.1986 requiring the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner in service. Copy of the said notice is placed at page 15. It seems that the respondent did not take the petitioner in service and, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed before this court.

(3.) It has been contended here that the respondent has committed illegality in passing the aforesaid order without any enquiry and without affording opportunity of being heard and, therefore, the respondent's action is illegal. The petitioner has, therefore, preferred this petition on 16.9.1989 for the aforesaid relief.