TEK CHAND Vs. THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) No elaborate reasons are required to be given in order to allow this petition and to grant a just relief to the petitioner.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as a daily -rated workman in different capacities, such as Beldar, Fitter, Mason, Excavator etc., from September, 1978 to March 1985 and that since January, 1C83, he worked continuously as a Fitter till March, 1985. The details of the periods for which he worked during this entire spell of time are set out in the affidavit -in -reply and in Annexure R -A thereto. The affidavit -in -reply indicates that the termination of the employment of the petitioner was not simpliciter but penal in nature founded on his alleged misconduct which is sought to be supported by documents placed on the record of the case.

(3.) True it is that the petitioner was a daily -rated workman. However, even a daily -rated workman, who has been employed for such a length of time, cannot be put out of employment on such grounds and under such circumstances without compliance with the basic rules of natural justice. Though no regular departmental inquiry is required to be held against such a workman, the least that is required to be done is : (1) to inform him of the proposed action, (2) to disclose to him the material sought to be relied against him, (3) to afford him a reasonable opportunity to correct or controvert such material and to place his view point and (4) to arrive at a fair and just decision supported by reasons, In the present case, these basic requirements of the rules of natural justice and fair play are not shown to have been complied with. Under the circumstances, the termination must be regarded as void.