SURAT SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for bringing on record the legal representatives is allowed.

(2.) Undisputedly the observations of the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court is to the effect that before the services of the petitioner were terminated, no domestic enquiry had been conducted. Even before us it had not been shown that any domestic enquiry was conducted before terminating the services of the petitioner though his services were terminated on the ground that he has embezzled some amount. The services of the petitioner were terminated under the veil of his being a probationer. On lifting the veil from the innocuous order of termination, there is no gainsaying that services of the petitioner were terminated by way of punishment on account of his being found guilty of embezzlement during the tenure of his service.

(3.) It is not disputed at the Bar that his termination could have been justified before the authorities below which the respondents have successfully been able to do. The said finding has not been challenged. The above proposition of law is also supported by the observations in AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1896.