Dismissed

Ram Singh v. the Presiding Officer and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Jul 2011CWP/14779/1994

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a temporary T-Mate employed for less than three months on probation, challenged his termination via CWP. He sought reinstatement with back wages, claiming deprivation of fair inquiry opportunity. The court dismissed the petition citing temporary nature of employment and lack of regular inquiry requirement.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; order of termination upheld; no reinstatement or back wages granted.

Ram Singh Vs the Presiding Officer… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CWP No. 14779 of 1994

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 14779 of 1994 Date of Decision: 13.07.2011

Ram Singh

...Petitioner

Vs.

The Presiding Officer Labour Court & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N.Jindal,

¶11

Present: Mr.N.D.Kalra, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

None for the respondents.

¶13

A.N.Jindal, J . (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner, has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing of order Annexure P.9 and also for issuing directions to respondent No.2 to reinstate him with all consequential benefits including full back wages.

¶15

The petitioner was appointed as T-Mate by respondent No.2 w.e.f. 28.9.1979 in the Pay Scale of Rs.70-95 at the basic pay of Rs.70/- on temporary basis for a period of three months. The petitioner joined services as aforesaid and continued on the post up to 21.04.1980 due to timely extensions. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.4.1980 to the effect that an inquiry was held against him into the pilferage of diesel oil and he was found to be guilty of misconduct under Clause 21(6)(i) of Certified Standing Orders and as such the petitioner was asked to submit his reply by 18.4.1980.

¶16

The petitioner filed reply Annexure P.3 to the show cause notice pleading that he was not responsible for pilferage of diesel and further that

¶17

¶18

CWP No. 14779 of 1994

¶19

Satnam Singh T.Mate has admitted his fault to that effect. Thereafter, without affording any reasonable opportunity to defend his case the service of the petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 21.4.1980 vide order Annexure P.4.

¶20

Thereafter a reference was made by the Government to the Labour Court, Jalandhar under Section 10 (1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Labour Court Jalandhar declined the application of the petitioner. Hence the present petition.

¶21

Reply to the petition was filed by respondeat No.2 wherein he took the plea that previously an award dated 12.9.1984 was passed by the Labour Court, however, the same being ex parte was set aside vide order dated 10.6.1988 and later on detailed award dated 2.9.1994 was passed by the Labour Court, Jalandhar. Award being well founded and well reasoned does not call for any interference by this court.

¶22

Replication to the written statement has also been filed. Arguments heard. Records perused.

¶23

The petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis for a period of 90 days i.e. from 28.9.1979 to 25.12.1979 vide order dated 6.10.1979. The petitioner did not complete 240 days and ultimately his services were terminated w.e.f. 21.4.1980 vide order Annexure P.4. The petitioner was still on probation period, therefore, no regular inquiry was required. Though the petitioner has submitted that he had filed reply to the show cause notice, yet it appears that he had not done so. There was serious charge of theft against him. Even otherwise, he was employed on purely temporary basis and he could be removed even without any notice.

¶24

No merit. Dismissed.

¶25

(A.N.Jindal) Judge

¶26

13.07.2011 rp

Ram Singh v. the Presiding Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh v. the Presiding Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kanwal Prashad Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Raj Rani Vs Sudarshan Bhalla and Ors.

Sheelawati Vs State of Punjab

M/S Jtpl Townships Private Ltd. Vs Om Parkash

Bhoop Singh Vs Partap Singh @ Pat Ram and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.