Ranganath Misra, J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave assails the Award dated June 13, 1980, passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Delhi. The following question was referred for adjudication:"Whether the termination of services of Shri Kamal Kishore Lakshman is illegal and/or unjustified; and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect -
(2.) The appellant was employed by respondent No. 1 on regular vacancy as a Cargo Mail Service Representative at Palam Airport. His services were terminated on March 15, 1974. The appellant maintains that the termination was bad and contrary to principles of natural justice and demanded reinstatement with full back wages and other service benefits. The management resisted this claim and contended that the appellant while on leave in February 1974 had gone to Hong Kong and returned to Delhi in Flight No. PA-1 in the morning of February 22, 1974. During his absence from India, two aluminium foot lockers had been received on February 19, 1974. Those lookers were not meant for New Delhi and had been deposited with the Customs authorities and were taken from Customs custody for being despatched to proper destination in the Company's flight PA-002. These two trunks were not loaded in the flight but were taken out at the instance of Chandu Lal (co-employee) by taxi and delivered at the house of the appellant. When questioned Chandu Lal accepted these allegations. The management undertook some preliminary enquiry and when the appellant arrived in India on February 22, 1974, he too was questioned. His stand and the explanation were not acceptable to the employer and it took the stand that the management had lost confidence in the employee and termination in the circumstances was bona fide and was in accordance with the provisions for separation of employees according to conditions of service.
(3.) Admittedly no domestic enquiry had been held but before the Labour Court both parties led evidence. The Labour Court considered the entire evidence keeping in mind the legal position indicated by this Court in some decisions and came to the following conclusion: "I am of the clear opinion that the action of the management of Pan-Am was promoted only by the desire to have operational efficiency and the decision to separate Kamal Kishore Lakshman was taken only because operational efficiency was endangered in continuing Lakshman in service when there were grave suspicion against Mr. Lakshman about being involved in avoidance of customs duties in respect of goods in the two aluminium foot lockers." The Labour Court also further found that Lakshman had undertaken a trip to Bangkok and Hong Kong in suspicious circumstances and held that: "What is indicated is that in the totality of circumstances the management lost confidence in Lakshman and his involvement in smuggling activities could not be said to be a fanciful or whimsical matter. The order had to be made for a 'good reason' and the reference to the recent happenings in the order of termination does not cast a stigma, but only complies with the requirement of the Separation Rules.";