- (1.) This petition has been moved by Surinder Kumar under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 24th March, 1986 as well as the order dated 4th October, 1980 passed by Respondent No. 2 (Annexures P. 2 and P. 1 respectively).
(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Rewinder in Chitra Talkies, Inside Hall Gate, Amritsr about 22 years back and had put in 16/17 years at the time of this termination, which took place on 4th October, 1980 and was drawing Rs. 291 per mensem. His services were terminated,--vide order dated 4th October, 1980 (Annexure P. 1) passed by the Management of the Chitra Talkies. A false story was fabricated by the Management later on in order to justify their action of passing such order. The Petitioner moved the authorities for reconciliation after having received the termination orders but none had appeared before the said authorities for such purpose. Thus, the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, Chandigarh under Section 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') for determining the justification for termination of his services. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court-Respondent No. 1 proceeded in hasty manner and passed a cryptic order upholding the aforesaid termination order. Only one witness from the Management side appeared as MW-1. He reiterated the stand taken in the affidavit Ex. M. 1. Before passing the termination order, admittedly, no domestic inquiry was held by the Management, which was a pre-requisite. In this order, it has been mentioned that the services of the Petitioner are being terminated due to loss of confidence in him. It is well settled that when the services are terminated on the basis of loss of confidence, the order does not amount to one with stigma. The Petitioner has not been given the retrenchment compensation as required under the law at the time of termination of his services nor a notice as required under Section 25F of the Act has been served. The impugned award is liable to be set aside on the grounds as embodied in the petition. The main law points involved in the petition read as under;-- (i) Whether without holding domestic inquiry the services of an employee having 16/17 years of service can be terminated on the basis of misconduct ? (ii) Whether the Management, taking the stand of losing the confidence in the employee, while terminating services of the employee which attaches a stigma, without holding inquiry, which is a condition precedent to the infliction of termination as a measure of punishment, is sustainable ?
(3.) As is borne out from the record, Respondent No. 2 did not file written statement to the petition. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties, besides perusing the impugned award with due care and circumspection. Mr. Jang Bahadur Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, making short-shrift of his arguments maintain that; (a) admittedly no domestic inquiry was held by the Management-Respondent No. 2 before passing the termination order though this order attaches stigma to the Petitioner; (b) if the termination has to be based upon the conduct attaching stigma (loss of confidence) then the disciplinary proceedings are necessary as a condition precedent to the infliction of termination by way of punishment as ruled in re: Chandu Lal v. The Management of Pan American World Airways Inc., 1985 AIR(SC) 1128, (c) the termination of service son the ground of loss of confidence does not amount to retrenchment and holding of domes tic enquiry is a condition precedent; (d) if the present impugned award is struck down, the Petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with full back-wages as has (1) been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works (Private Limited) v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works (Private Limited), 1979 AIR(SC) 75 (e) The Petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of cross-examination the persons who have submitted their affidavits and representations as they have not appeared in the witness box to stand the test of cross-examination; (f) No retrenchment compensation has been awarded to the Petitioner as required under Section 25-F of the Act. (g) No. notice in the prescribed manner has been served upon the appropriate Government as is required under Section 25-F(c) of the Act which render the proceedings illegal and in view of these flaws, impugned award is liable to be set aside.;