JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. This petition is directed against the impugned award dated 16.3.1999 passed by Labour Court, Kota, in Case no. 21/1998 by which oral termination order dated 29.10.1984 of the petitioner has been held to be valid.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 30.5.1984 and his services were terminated orally on 29.10.1984. Counsel submits that a vague remark was issued against the petitioner that nine passengers were found without ticket. Counsel submits that neither any charge-sheet was given nor any enquiry was held against the petitioner, hence his termination order is punitive. Counsel submits that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25F, G, H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “Act of 1947”). Counsel submits that while relying on para nos. 34 and 35 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. (1999) 2 SCC 21 that termination order of the petitioner has been found to be valid by the Labour Court. Counsel submits that during pendency of the matter before the Labour Court, affidavits were submitted by both sides but no findings were recorded by the Labour Court hence, interference of this court is warranted and appropriate direction be issued to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner back in service.

3. Per contra, the counsel for respondents opposed the arguments raised by the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner hardly worked with the employer for eighty-one days and had not completed one year of service and during inspection of the bus on the route of Aklera-Jhalawar, nine passengers were found without ticket though the petitioner had charged the fare of tickets from seven passengers. Counsel submits that termination of the petitioner on 29.10.1984 was simplicitor and the same was not passed with any remark, hence the same cannot be said to be punitive.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the material available on the record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages as Conductor on 30.5.1984 and during inspection of the bus it was found that nine passengers were found without ticket, while the petitioner had charged fare from seven passengers, hence the services of the petitioner were terminate orally on 29.10.1984.

6. Now the issue before this court is “whether the impugned termination of the petitioner is punitive?” If yes, “whether enquiry was required to be conducted against the petitioner after serving charge-sheet to the petitioner?”

7. Perusal of the record indicates that the petitioner was engaged on daily wages. He petitioner was not a regular or confirmed employee and his services were not found to be satisfactory during his eighty-one days of services and accordingly the same were terminated. Meaning thereby, the status of petitioner was of an employee working as daily wager.

8. The law with respect to termination of services of a daily wager or probationer is now well settled. Termination has to be by a non-stigmatic order. If the services of a daily wager or probationer is found not satisfactory, his termination order will not amount to a termination order being a stigmatic one. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chaitanya Prakash vs. H. Omkarappa, (2010) 2 SCC 623, has held that there is no need to follow the principles of natural justice while terminating services of a probationer and even if the termination order refers to the unsatisfactory service of the probationer, the order is not stigmatic. Paras 18 and 21 of the said judgment would be useful to be reproduced here, which reads as under:

“18. It is no longer res integra that even if an order of termination refers to unsatisfactory service of the person concerned, the same cannot be said to be stigmatic. In this connection, we make a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhijit Gupta vs.