Termination simpliciter can be subject to scrutiny if it is found to be a colorable exercise of power or a result of victimization or unfair labor practice. An appointment made in ignorance of the candidate's ineligibility is invalid.

1. Misrepresenting that he was not previously employed anywhere and making a false declaration to that effect, the petitioner joined the service of the State Bank of Travancore (Ist Respondent) as Cashier. Actually he was previously employed in the Posts and Telegraphs Department and while so employed he was under suspension during 30 71968 to 16-3-1969 in connection with Savings Bank fraud and temporary misappropriation of of Office Cash. His service in that Department was terminated on 18-3-1969 under the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules. Coming to know of his previous employment the 1st Respondent Bank asked the petitioner about it; and about his failure to produce a discharge Certificate from the previous employer as required by the conditions of appointment. He admitted his previous employment but did not offer any explanation regarding the non-disclosure of it nor any excuse for the false declaration that he was not previously employed anywhere. The Bank terminated his employment under Para.522(1) of the Sastri Award, also known as the Bank Award. This termination is challenged in this writ petition.

2. Para.522(1) of the Bank Award marked here as Ext. P7 so far as it is material for this case reads:

"In cases not involving disciplinary action for misconduct and subject to clause (6) below, the employment of a permanent employee may be terminated by three months' notice or on payment of three months pay and allowances in lieu of notice."

3. The Supreme Court considered this provision in Chartered Bank v. Chartered Bank Employee's Union (AIR.1960 SC.919 (922) and said as follows:-

"There is no doubt that an employer cannot dispense with the services of a permanent employee by mere notice and claim that the industrial tribunal has no jurisdiction to inquire into the circumstances in which such termination of service simpliciter took place. Many standing orders have provisions similar to Para.522(1) of the Bank Award, and the scope of the power of the employer to act under such provisions has come up for consideration before labour tribunals many a time. In Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Workers of Company, 1952 Lab AC 490, the Labour Appellate Tribunal had occasion to consider this matter relating to discharge by notice or in lieu thereof by payment of wages for a certain period without assigning any reason. It was of opinion that even in a case of this kind the requirement of bona fides is essential and if the termination of service is a colourable exercise of the power or as a result of victimisation or unfair labour practice the industrial tribunal would have the jurisdiction to intervene and set aside such termination. Further it held that where the termination of service is capricious, arbitrary or unnecessarily harsh on the part of the employer judged by normal standards of a reasonable man that may be cogent evidence of victimisation or unfair labour practice. We are of opinion that this correctly lays down the scope of the power of the tribunal to interfere where service is terminated simpliciter under the provisions of a contract or of standing orders or of some award like the Bank Award. In order to judge this, the tribunal will have to go into all the circumstances which led to the termination simpliciter and employer cannot say that it is not bound to disclose the circumstances before the tribunal. The form of the order of termination is not conclusive of the true nature of the order, for it is possible that the form may be merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct. It is therefore always open to the tribunal to go behind the form and look at the substance and if it comes to the conclusion, for example, that though in form the order amounts to termination simpliciter it in reality cloaks a dismissal for misconduct it will be open to it to set it aside as a colourable exercise of the power."

4. In his pleadings the petitioner has no case that though in form a termin