2005 (8) TMI 730 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit - Challenged the Validity Of order of termination - Entitlement to continue in service without any break - Appointment as conductor on daily wages with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation - Suit for declaration - Termination on the basis of the remarks made by the checking staff on 01.05.1984 when the respondent was on duty - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The services of the respondent were terminated simpliciter and does not contain any stigma and, therefore, there was no requirement under the law to hold any enquiry before terminating the services. The Courts below have also committed serious error in granting back wages along with reinstatement. Even otherwise, the respondent has not led any evidence before the trial Court except his own ipsi dixit to show that his services were terminated on the ground of any alleged misconduct. Therefore, it was not obligatory on the part of the Corporation to hold an enquiry before terminating the services. It is also settled that the employees of the Corporation are not civil servants and, therefore, they are not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Their terms of appointment is governed by the letter of appointment and, therefore, the management was well within its right to terminate the services of the respondent-probationer during the period of probation if his services were not found to be satisfactory during the said period. The Courts below and the High Court have committed serious error in decreeing the suit as prayed for and for directing reinstatement with full back wages. The respondent is a temporary employee of the Corporation and a probationer and not a Government servant and, therefore, is not entitled for any protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. He was a party to the contract. In view of the fact that the respondent was appointed on probation and the services were terminated during the period of probation simpliciter as the same were not found to be satisfactory, the appellant-Corporation is not obliged to hold an enquiry before terminating the services. The respondent being a probationer has got no substantive right to hold the post and was not entitled to a decree of declaration as erroneously granted by the lower Courts and also of the High Court. Thus, we hold that the respondent ought to have approached the remedies provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. He has miserably failed to do so but approached the Civil Court, which on the facts and circumstances of the case has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The respondent has not acted bona fide in instituting the suit. It is seen from the order of the High Court that the respondent had been reinstated in service in the year 1990 and the back wages had also been paid to him. Though in law, the respondent is not entitled to any back wages, thus, we are not inclined to order refund of the back wages already paid to the respondent. But we make it very clear that the respondent shall not be allowed to continue in service any further. He shall not be entitled to any further emoluments or service benefits except the amount, which has already been paid to him. The respondent shall be discharged forthwith. No costs. The appeal stands allowed.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Industrial Disputes
2. Termination of a probationary employee
3. Applicability of principles of natural justice
4. Entitlement to back wages and reinstatement

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Civil Courts in Industrial Disputes:
The primary issue was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit filed by the respondent, which was essentially an industrial dispute. The judgment referenced several precedents, including *Premier Automobiles Limited vs. Kamlakar Shantaram Wadke* and *Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation And Anr. v. Krishna Kant*, which clarified that disputes involving enforcement of rights under the Industrial Disputes Act should be adjudicated by the forums created by the Act, not Civil Courts. The court concluded that the respondent's remedy lay under the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction in this matter.

2. Termination of a probationary employee:
The respondent was appointed on probation and his services were terminated during this period. The court examined whether the termination was punitive or a simple termination. It was established that the termination was simpliciter, without any stigma or punitive intent. The court cited several cases, including *Ravindra Kumar Misra vs. U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd.* and *State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla*, to support the view that a probationary employee can be terminated without an inquiry if the termination is not punitive.

3. Applicability of principles of natural justice:
The respondent argued that his termination violated principles of natural justice as no inquiry was held. The court, however, noted that since the termination was simpliciter and not based on misconduct, there was no requirement for an inquiry. The court emphasized that a temporary or probationary employee does not have a substantive right to hold the post and can be terminated if their performance is unsatisfactory, as per the terms of the appointment.

4. Entitlement to back wages and reinstatement:
The lower courts had granted reinstatement with full back wages to the respondent. The Supreme Court found this to be erroneous, stating that the respondent was not entitled to such relief as his termination was lawful and within the terms of his appointment. The court also noted that the principle of "No Work, No Pay" applied, and the respondent had not acted bona fide in instituting the suit. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, the court did not order the refund of back wages already paid but directed that the respondent be discharged forthwith and not be allowed to continue in service.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, the termination of the respondent's probationary employment was lawful and non-punitive, and the respondent was not entitled to reinstatement or back wages beyond what had already been paid. The respondent was ordered to be discharged immediately, with no further emoluments or service benefits.

← Previous Next →