- (1.) THIS special appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge dated December 16, 1991 by which he has summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellants for quashing the award dated May 29, 1989 (published on August 7, 1989) declaring the termination of the respondent Lal Chand as illegal and directing his reinstatement with full back wages. The facts of the case may be summarised thus.
(2.) ON April 23, 1983, the respondent Lal Chand was appointed as a Conductor. On April 20, 1984, he was performing his duty on petitioner-appellants' bus No. 5694 going from Anopgarh (Sri Ganganagar) to Ferozpur (Punjab ). In the way, it was checked by the Inspectors Jagat Narain Khatri and Sohan Singh Gill. They found that 58 passengers were travelling in it without tickets. They prepared necessary documents on the spot and got the signature of the Conductor Lal Chand on them. His services were terminated on April 21, 1984. Conductor Lal Chand took the matter before the Conciliation officer, Sri Ganganagar. A reference was made to the Labour Court, Bikaner under Section 10, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be called 'the Act' ). Respondent Lal Chand filed his claim Annexure-1. The petitioner-appellant filed their reply Annexure-3. Respondent Lal Chand filed his affidavit Annexure-4 and of his witness Prem Kumar Annexure-5 in its support. The petitioner-appellants cross-examined Lal Chand on his affidavit and produced the Inspector Jagat Narain MAW-1. They also moved application Annexure-6 for summoning; certain documents. After hearing the parties, the learned Labour Court, Bikaner held that the respondent Lal Chand has completed 240 days of service prior to his termination, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were attracted and they had not been complied with before terminating his services, his termination dated April 21, 1984 was illegal and gave the award as said above. Writ Petition No. 385/90 was filed by the appellants and it was summarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his impugned order.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner-appellants contended that Lal Chand, Conductor, was appointed for specific period, his termination of the services was the result of non-renewal of the contract of employment, he did not even complete 240 days of service and provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not attracted in this case. He further contended that the learned Judge, Labour Court, Bikaner did not at all consider that it was well proved from the evidence produced before him that respondent Lal Chand did not issue tickets to 58 passengers despite obtaining fare from all of them and if he would have considered it he would have been satisfied that the order of termination was justified. He relied upon Delhi Cloth Milts v. Ludhbudh Singh (1972-I-LLJ-180) (SC) and Remington Rand of India Ltd. v. Tahir Ali Defi, (1975-II-LLJ-376) (SC ).;