- (1.) THIS special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the judgment and order dated December 7, 1992 of the learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1755/87, holding termination of respondent's service to be illegal and void with further direction to reinstate him with all consequential benefits from the date of judgment. For back wages for the period from the date of termination till the date of Judgment it was observed that the respondent shall be free to take steps under Section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).
(2.) FOR deciding the questions raised before us, it is desirable to note out the facts and circumstances leading to this appeal. The respondent was an employee of the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for short the Corporation ). He was appointed as a bus conductor initially on daily wage basis vide Order dated June 28,1986. Thereafter vide order dated May 5, 1987 he was appointed on probation for one year and regular pay scale of bus conductor was given to him. The appointment letter contained terms and conditions of employment. One of them is that his services shall be regulated by the Standing Orders of the Corporation which govern service conditions of its employees. During probation period, vide order dated July 15, 1987 the respondent was discharged from his service by giving him one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice. The respondent challenged the order of termination before this Court by filing writ petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The challenge was on several grounds. It was stated to be a mala fide and arbitrary action of the Corporation. It was also pleaded, inter alia, that persons junior in service were retained while respondent's service were terminated without notice or affording him an opportunity of hearing. The action was stated as punitive in nature. Another challenge was that his termination amounted to retrenchment and it was void and inoperative being in violation of mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Act.
(3.) IN return on behalf of the Corporation it was denied that termination of the respondent's service was by way of punitive action or the principles of natural justice were attracted. According to the Corporation, the respondent was discharged from service during probation period as his work was found unsatisfactory. Certain past acts of his commission and omission were detailed out in the reply to substantiate this contention. In short, the p!ea of Corporation is that the impugned order was one of discharge or termination of service simpliciter which could not be regarded as punitive in nature. Further the termination was as per service conditions of the employment as provided under the Standing Orders of the Corporation and it did not amount to retrenchment to attract Section 25-F of the Act.;