J.R. Chopra, J - (1.) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.10.1989 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been rejected and the judgment rendered by the learned Judge, Labour Court Bikaner on 1.5.1989 has been upheld.
(2.) THE facts, necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated are: that respondent No. 2 Laxminarain, who was working in the Central State Farm, Suratgarh, which is a branch of the State Farm Corporation of India, as a Chowkidar in Block No. 1. It is alleged that on or about 24.1.1981, a report was received from the Security Supervisor that in the night intervening between 23rd and 24th January, 1981, the Police conducted a raid in the farm area of Suratgarh and seized a working still of raw liquor. As per the police version, two culprits of village Saramsar who were not employees of the Farm were caught but the respondent No. 2, a daily paid worker of the Farm, managed to escape living behind his blanket and stick. A case under Section 4(2) of the Rajasthan Prohibition Act was registered against respondent No. 2 by the Police. He was arrested on 24.1.1981 and was released on bail on 30.1.1981. A show cause notice was issued to respondent No. 2 on 18.2.1981 mentioning this fact that he should explain his conduct as also his absence from duty without leave and why he should not be relieved from service. The respondent No. 2 filed a reply in which he contested this report. It was submitted that at that time, he alongwith Shaitansingh, Assistant Head Guard were on guard duty. When they found unknown persons cutting farm trees and when they asked them not to do so, the unknown persons snatched his blanket and stick and when he went to make a report about it, he was handed over to the police and, therefore, according to him, this allegation that he was found indulging in distilling illicit liquor was wrong. After examining his reply, the order Annexure -P. 2 dated 10.5.1981 was passed whereby the services of the respondent No. 2 were terminated under Section 11(a)(iv) of the Certified Standing Orders for the Employees of the Central State Farm: Suratgarh (for short 'the Standing Orders'). Aggrieved against the order Annexure -P. 2 dated 10.5.1981, the respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute before the learned Labour Court, Bikaner. The learned labour Court vide its order dated 1.5.89 came to the conclusion that the services of respondent No. 2 has been terminated without adhering the principles of natural justice. He was not given an opportunity of hearing and no enquiry was conducted against him, and, therefore, his termination was wrong and, therefore, he has been ordered to be re -instated in service with affect from the date his services have been terminated. He was ordered to be reinstated with back wages including all other benefits which are allowable to him under the Rules. It was against this order of the learned Labour Court dated 1.5.1989, the petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which came to be decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 20.10.1989. Hence this appeal. It has been contended that the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not attracted in such cases. Only the person has to be informed about his unsatisfactory service. Section 11(a)(iv) of the Standing Orders provides for the penalty of discharge or dismissal from service. It was submitted that Section 11(a) of the Standing Orders provides that no order under Clause (iii) or Clause (iv) of sub -paragraph (a) above shall be made unless the employee has been informed in writing of the alleged misconduct and has been given a reasonable opportunity to explain the charges alleged against him. An appeal has also been provided under Section 12 of the Standing Orders. It was contended by the appellants before the learned Single Judge that according to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Assam v. : (1968)ILLJ288SC , casual labourer is not holder of a post and, therefore, the provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution are not attracted. It was further contended that the requirement of the principles of natural justice have, of course, been complied with. The respondent No. 2 was given a show cause notice and his reply was received and after considering his reply, his services have been terminated. Reference has been made in the writ petition to a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Sumati P. Shere v. : (1989)IILLJ228SC , wherein it has been held that the termination of the services on the ground of unsuitability of the post does not attract Article 311 of the Constitution. It was further observed that there cannot be any dispute about this proposition. It was also observed that we are not laying down the rule that there should be a regular enquiry in this case and all that we have to state is that if the petitioner is to be discontinued, it is proper and necessary that he should be told in advance that his work and performance are not upto the mark. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that has been done in this case. No detailed enquiry was called for and, therefore, the orders of the learned labour Court as also the learned Single Judge are unsustainable.
(3.) WE have heard Mr. R.R. Vyas, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. D.K. Parihar, the learned Counsel for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the case.;