JUDGMENT :

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the award dated 20.6.2016 passed by Labour Court No.1, Jaipur in LCR Case No. 96/2001 by which petitioner’s termination order dated 30.1.1986 has been found to be valid.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Driver for one year on probation vide order dated 13.9.1985 and his services were terminated during the period of probation vide impugned order dated 30.1.1986, as the same were not found to be satisfactory and found not dependable.

3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner approached the Labour Court on the ground that his termination order was punitive and stigmatic, hence without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing such an order should not have been passed. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court decided the claim against the petitioner by holding that he was on probation and probationer’s service can be terminated if his services are found to be unsatisfactory and no enquiry was required to be conducted as his termination order was neither punitive nor stigmatic.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it being a simple termination, no enquiry was required to be conducted after affording opportunity of hearing, but the order impugned is stigmatic, hence enquiry was required to be conducted. Counsel submits that the termination order runs in two parts - (i) services of the petitioner were “not found satisfactory”, and (ii) petitioner was “found not dependable”. Recording of reasons for “found not dependable”, amounts to stigma on the character of the petitioner, hence the impugned order dated 30.1.1986 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Counsel submits that the order is stigmatic and also punitive. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 1080.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no need for following the principles of natural justice while terminating the services of a probationer and the termination order of the petitioner refers to his unsatisfactory services and he was not found dependable, hence the order is neither stigmatic nor punitive. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Miss Manju Shikdar v. General Manager (Planning & Development) State Bank of Indore 2008 LLR 752 (Allahabad). Counsel submits that the order of termination was passed on 30.1.1986, while the dispute was raised in the year 2001. Counsel submits that the petitioner approached the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, but he has not disclosed the result of the said suit. Counsel submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper and the same does not warrant any interference of this court.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 13.9.1985 on the post of Driver, initially for a period of one year on probation and his services were found to be unsatisfactory and not dependable, hence he was removed from the said post on 30.1.1986. The petitioner has raised the industrial dispute in the year 2001 i.e. after a delay of fifteen years. No documentary evidence is available on the record that when the petitioner approached the Civil Court and when he withdrew the said suit for approaching the Labour Court invoking the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “Act of 1947”).

(7.1) Be as it may, it is clear that for availing proper remedy, the petitioner approached the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance. Now the only issue which remains for adjudication of this court is “whether the impugned order dated 30.1.1986 is stigmatic, and whether any enquiry was required to be conducted after following the principles of natural justice?”.

(7.2) This fa