B. L. Yadav, J. - (1.) -
(2.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal in a suit for declaration that the order dated 1-6-1976 orally terminating the services was illegal. The plaintiff-appellant alleged that he was appointed on 24-11-1971 as Bus Conductor in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation on usual pay scale. He was directed to deposit Rs. 200/- as security. He was working as such till 31-5-1976. There was no complaint against his conduct from any quarter and his services were appreciated. He was granted annual increments. He was serving in U. P. Bus no. 264. On 1-6-1976 defendant no. 2, the Asstt. Regional Manager, issued a verbal instruction to the plaintiff not to come to the work as his services were terminated. He asked for the reasons, but the same were not applied. No written order terminating his services was passed. He made a representation and met personally respondent no. 2 requesting him either to disclose the charges or permit him to discharge his duties, but all this was in vain. The plaintiff was not served with the charge-sheet nor he was suspended. No notice for termination was given and it appears that against some anonymous complaints and on the basis of some secret enquiry about which he was not informed nor he has any knowledge, his services were terminated by verbal orders. His case was that he was appointed in substantive capacity and termination of his service by oral order without any opportunity of hearing was by way of punishment. The relief claimed was that order terminating his services may be set aside and he may be declared to be in continuous service. Defendant-respondents contested the suit denying the plaint allegations. It was mainly urged that the appellant was not appointed in substantive vacancy rather he was appointed from time to time since 1971. The term of the plaintiff was not extended beyond 25-8-1972 as there were complaints of corruption against him. The representation of the plaintiff was dismissed on 18-11-72. Again during mass strike in the month of March, 1973 the plaintiff was given appointment with effect from 17-2-1973, which was extended upto 31-5-1976 and it was not extended thereafter. The plaintiff can seek his remedy under the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the order of termination is illegal ? (2) Whether the suit is barred by provisions of Industrial Disputes Act ? (3) Whether the suit is barred by time ? (4) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled.
(3.) BOTH the courts below have decided issues no. 2 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff. The learned Additional Munsif however, held that the appellant was not appointed for a fixed term rather he was appointed in substantive vacancy on the date of the termination of the service, there were some complaints of corruption against the appellant and the verbal order of termination apparently was innocuous, but in the back-ground there were complaints of corruption ; the impugned oral order was passed without any opportunity either to show cause or to be heard. The trial court consequently decreed the suit. The defendant-respondents preferred an appeal, which has been allowed up-holding the findings of the trial court that the suit was not barred by provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, nor the same was time barred. The appeal has been allowed by the court below on the grounds that the appellant was not appointed in the substantive vacancy rather he was appointed for a fixed term and the order of termination was not by way of punishment nor it was an order of dismissal, it was perfectly correct. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant urged that the appellant was not appointed from time to time for a fixed period, rather he was appointed as a Bus Conductor in substantive vacancy, even the increments were given to the appellant, who has been serving regularly since 24-11-1971, but in the service record there appears to be some break. The verbal order of termination may appear to be innocuous, but it was certainly on the basis of some complaints against the conduct of the appellant. Some enquiries appear to have been made behind the back of the appellant about which the appellant had no information, nor opportunity was given to him to show cause before passing the oral order of termination, which was an order of dismissal. Reliance was placed on the cases of Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1986) 4 SCC 141 ; Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, (1984) 2 SCC 369 ; State of Bihar v. Shiv Bhikshuk Misra, (1971) 2 SCC 191.;