- (1.) The appellant in this writ appeal calls in question the judgment and order dated January 29, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition. Certain facts are undisputed. The appellant was initially appointed as bus driver by the Assistant Director (Admn.), Directorate of Transport, Andaman and Nicobar Administration on a daily wage of Rs. 39/- w.e.f. December 15, 1993. On the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for Group 'C' posts, the Director of Transport (the second respondent) vide office Order No. 2125 dated August 20, 1997 appointed 5 (five) daily rated bus drivers including the appellant as bus driver purely on ad hoc basis for a period of 6 (six) months in the scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500/-together with dearness allowance and compensatory allowance as admissible under the rules with immediate effect. Close on the heels of such appointment, memo dated October 6, 1997 was issued to the appellant by the Director. It was alleged therein that the appellant had misappropriated 119 litres of HSD oil by way of showing excessive consumption thereof, which is a serious offence and deserved to be dealt with severely in terms of the Certified Standing Orders (hereafter the CSO) applicable to the workmen of the department. He was, accordingly, asked to show cause why his ad hoc appointment shall not be terminated with immediate effect. The notice allowed the appellant 3 (three) days from date of receipt thereof "to submit his written statement to defend the case" failing which necessary ex-parte action for termination was threatened. In his 4 (four) line response dated January 17, 1997, the appellant denied the allegation of misappropriation of 119 litres of HSD oil as "false and fabricated". Office Order No. 2932 dated November 17, 1997 followed, issued by the Director, terminating the ad hoc appointment of the appellant with immediate effect in terms of paragraph 14(2) of the CSO on 3 (three) grounds, viz. (i) the appellant's explanation to the show-cause notice, on examination, was not found satisfactory and his conduct during the first 2 (two) months having been found unbecoming of a Government servant, continuing him in service would be "detrimental to the department" and not in "public interest"; (ii) he refused to perform duty on STS Bus No. 235 on October 9, 1997; and (iii) he was found absent from duty on October 10, 1997 without prior intimation or sanction resulting in cancellation of the scheduled trip to the utter prejudice of the passengers and loss of revenue for the department. Such termination gave rise to an industrial dispute. A reference was made to the Labour Court, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair by the Lieutenant Governor (the first respondent) on March 20, 2003 [in exercise of power conferred by sections 10(1) and 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereafter the Act) read with notification dated December 13, 1955] for decision whether the termination of the appellant's service effected by the Director is legal and justified and if not, to what relief, if any, is he entitled. I.D. (L.C.) Case No. 09/03 was registered, whereupon the parties filed their pleadings and adduced evidence. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court by his award dated July 22, 2011 held the termination to be legal and justified and answered the reference accordingly. The award was assailed by the appellant by preferring a writ petition, which has since been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court upon consideration of the "written argument" and the documents furnished by the Director noticed that though the appellant was asked to show cause regarding the alleged pilferage of HSD oil, he had "only denied the charge" and returned findings that the documents filed by the Director "speak that time to time there was pilferage in the HSO oil" and that the oil taken by the appellant "was totally disproportionate to the kilometers for which the journey was undertaken" and further that the appellant "could not give any satisfactory reply challenging the said annexures". The said officer thereafter proceeded to consider the point as to whether the appellant was retrenched from service or not and answered it in the negative. He further considered the involvement of the appellant in a criminal case arising out of violation of traffic rules committed by him in course of discharging duty. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant regarding the requirement to hold departmental enquiry before ordering termination of service was repelled by observing that the cause shown could not satisfy the employer and since he was not a permanent employee, he was not clothed with such protection.
(2.) The learned Single Judge after recording the factual aspects observed as follows: "Mr. Kumar would contend, neither the authority nor the Labour Court did apply their mind as would be apparent from their respective orders. He would contend, the authority issued a show-cause notice only against the pilferage whereas the order of retrenchment and/or termination would refer to unauthorized absence and refusalto obey the directives. Similarly, the Labour Court mentioned the traffic rules violation resulting in criminal case that never surfaced earlier. Mrs. Nag would, however, contend, those are nothing but passing reference mentioning about earlier incidents to explain the conduct of the delinquent and nothing else. I am not fully impressed with Mrs. Nag's explanation. It would have been appropriate for the Tribunal not to mention about traffic violation. However, the principal charge of pilferage was specific. Delinquent miserably failed to answer the show-cause notice that would seal his fate. I am satisfied with the judgment and order of the Tribunal on the issue of applicability of section 25-F of the said Act of 1947. The writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. There will, however, no order as to costs."
(3.) Mr. Singh, learned Advocate representing the appellant, contended thahince the appellant's service has been terminated by a stigmatic order, an enquiry ought to have preceded the same notwithstanding the fact that he was an ad hoc appointee. According to him, the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge failed to consider this aspect and erred in the exercise of their jurisdiction in refusing to accept the claim of the appellant. It was also contended by him that the Labour Court looked into documents which were not brought on record in a legal manner. Orders holding the termination illegal and reinstatement of the appellant in service with consequential benefits were, accordingly, prayed for by him.;