The main legal point established is that termination of employment in accordance with applicable rules and not for misconduct may not require notice or charge-sheet, and may not violate the 'first come last go' principle or section 25-F of the I.D. Act.

JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.: - Rule. Heard forthwith. The petitioner aggrieved by the Award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. II, dated 3rd June, 2003 has preferred the present petition.

2. A few facts may be set out. The respondent No. 1 was initially appointed on 19th January, 1996. His services came to be terminated by notice dated 31st March, 1997. The notice reads as under :-

The services of Shri Madhe Singh Samant, Substitute Bungalow Peon S.D.G.M., in scale Rs. 750-940 (R.P.S) are terminated with immediate effect. A cheque for Rs. 3,319/- (Three thousand three hundred and nineteen), is enclosed herewith being payment towards retrenchment compensation and one month's wages in lieu of notice period as detailed below: This has the approval of the competent authority .

The contention of the respondent-workman was that his services were illegally terminated. Pursuant to that a reference came to be made to the Industrial Tribunal. The subject-matter of the reference was whether the services of the respondent No. 1 were legally terminated; whether the action of the General Manager in terminating the services of the respondent workman with effect from 31st March, 1997 is justified. The Tribunal after framing issues was pleased to hold that considering the evidence on record the petitioner management had terminated the services of the respondent workman as he had remained absent without any intimation and his work was not satisfactory. The Tribunal also noted that there was a clear admission that no notice or charge-sheet was given to the workman. The learned Tribunal, held that no show cause notice nor charge-sheet nor hearing nor even order of termination was given to the workman which is clear cut departure from the mandatory provisions of section 25-F of the I.D. Act and held that the termination is wholly unjustified and directed reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits. It is this award which is the subject-matter of the present petition.

3. At the hearing of this petition on behalf of the petitioners their learned Counsel contends that the services of the respondent were terminated considering the rules applicable to such appointment. There was no stigma attached to the order of termination. The petitioner had paid retrenchment compensation in terms of section 25-F of the I.D. Act. In these circumstances it is pointed out that it cannot be said that the order was without jurisdiction.

It is then submitted that considering the rules the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the show cause notice had to be given and/or for that matter charge-sheet ought to have been served would not arise as the respondent was not dismissed for any misconduct. Reliance is placed on various judgments which will be considered in the course of the judgment.

On the other hand on behalf of the respondent his learned Counsel contends that in the instant case the petitioners themselves had brought on record that the services of the respondent were terminated on the ground of absentism. This would amount to misconduct and, therefore, the services could not have been terminated without conducting an enquiry. As rightly held by the Tribunal no notice or charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and on this count itself the order is liable to be set aside.

It is then submitted that considering the material on record the order of termination amounts to a stigma and considering that the services could not have been terminated without holding an enquiry. It is lastly submitted that if it is the contention of the petitioners that the services of the respondent were terminated then the petitioners have not complied with the principles of first come last go and on that count also the order ought not to be interfered with.

4. The facts are not in dispute. The respondent workman was appointed as a substitute bungalow peon in terms of the administrative instructions dated October 9, 1972 read with instructions dated 11th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document