The judgment establishes the importance of evidence in employment termination cases and clarifies the necessity of parties in writ petitions.

K.C. Sood, J.

1. On a Reference made by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla, by its award dated 4th May, 2002 held that termination of the services of the respondent Puni Chand was illegal unjustified. The Presiding Judge directed his reinstatement from the date of his termination with continuity in seniority and back wages to the extent of 20% from the date of his termination.

2. Dis-satisfied, the petitioners, H.R.T.C. and Ors. are in this petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Few facts :

3. The respondent, hereinafter referred to as the "workman", in his claim petition alleged that he was appointed as Conductor in Baijnath Depot by the employer H.R.T.C. and thereafter was transferred to Pathankot Depot and continued to work at that place till November, 1989 and his services were terminated in the year 1989. Fresh appointment was given to him as Conductor in Rohru Depot in the year 1990, but was again transferred from Rohru to Hamirpur Depot in 1991 and thereafter to Baijnath. His services were terminated on 1st December, 1992 on account of embezzlement and having not issued tickets to the passengers.

4. The case of the workman was that several other Conductors who were engaged after him were retained in the service while he was disengaged from the service. According to the employer-Corporation, the workman was engaged and was put on probation for one year. His work and conduct was not found satisfactory, therefore, period of probation was extended for another period of one year. Even during this extended period of probation he was found to be involved in 14 cases of ticket-less travelling. His work and conduct too was unsatisfactory. It was for this reason that he was discharged from his service during the probation period.

5. Learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court took a view that no evidence was produced by the petitioner-Corporation that the workman was on probation and he was discharged from services. Apparently, the learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court in her wisdom had not gone through the pleadings of the parties and reached to this conclusion without any foundation and contrary to the pleadings before her.

6. In the statement of claim before the Labour Court the workman in paras 7 and 8 pleaded thus :

7. That admittedly the petitioner was given fresh appointment in March, 1990 at Rohru Depot after his services were terminated in November, 1989. The fresh appointment was on probation".

8. That the petitioner submits that one Mitter Dev referred to above whose services were also terminated like the petitioner during the probation period, were taken back by the respondent-Corporation as conductor. This is being said for the simple reason that the petitioner has been denied his entry in the respondent-Corporation as a conductor which shows that he is being discriminated qua the similarly situated persons, who have been taken back in the respondent-Corporation after their services were terminated during the probation period.

7. The employer in its reply admitted that the workman was given fresh appointment in March, 1990 at Rohru Depot and this appointment was on probation. In view of the admitted position by the parties that the workman was discharged from the services during probation period, the conclusion reached by the learned Labour Court that there was no evidence to show that the workman was discharged from services when he was on probation is manifestly wrong and dehors the pleadings. The Presiding Judge evidently did not bother to go through the pleadings.

8. Faced with the situation, learned Counsel for the workman relying upon Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and Anr. AIR 1963 SC 786 , contends that the Tribunal or Authority whose order is sought to be quashed are necessary parties when such orders are challenged in a writ petition. The contention again is fallacious.

9. A C