The main legal point established in the judgment is that termination of services without conducting an enquiry may be justified if the management has lost confidence in the workmen due to reasonable suspicion of misconduct.

K.Kannan, J.

1. The above two writ petitions challenge the correctness of the awards directing two of the workmen namely Mohan Shyam Sharma and Joginder Singh to be reinstated, while setting aside the order of termination of service by discharging the services of the workmen without stigma. The point urged by the management was that in instances where the management passed orders of termination simpliciter and awarded to the workmen the amounts that were due to them without forfeiting any of their claims for gratuity provident fund etc., the workmen could have no recourse to an action complaining of such termination. On the other hand, the Labour Court accepted the contentions of the workmen that a Court was entitled to examine the real motivations of the management for removal and the services that stood terminated without constituting an enquiry when the management had entertained doubts about the integrity of the workmen and affirmed by an earlier order that they were guilty of theft of vehicles, the termination was really in the nature of a punishment and although termed as simpliciter termination, it amounted to a retrenchment. The termination orders made without framing chargesheets against the workmen and establishing the alleged misconduct were contrary to law.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the management, Mr. Sarin makes no bones about the original suspicion that it entertained that the workmen were involved in theft of vehicles. The point that he was, however, trying to make was that in spite of such suspicion, what prey vailed with the management ultimately was not to take punitive action against the workmen but provide for an honourable exit to he workmen by giving to them what was due for the services rendered by them and merely recording the fact that the management had, lost the confidence in the workmen. The learned counsel would refer to several authorities to bring home the point that when a management had lost confidence in the workman, it was entitled to terminate the services by resort to relevant clause in the standing order that provided for termination and in such case, there was no need to constitute an enquiry. No misconduct was attributed to the workmen and therefore, the Labour Court is not entitled to examine whether any misconduct was proved. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-workmen would respond to the arguments with equal vehemence referring to several decisions to show that even orders simpliciter could be merely facade and it could veil a true intention of punishment of the management, guide as it were by a different motivation for a concealed agenda. Learned counsel, Sh. H.S. Sethi and Ms. Abha Rathore would, therefore, urge that the Court is not without power to find whether it was merely termination simpliciter or a termination by way of punishment.

3. The facts that would be relevant for consideration, which both parties admit are that 20 vehicles had been stolen from the Maruti factory which they claimed had not been sold and 16 of the vehicles were recovered through applications before Criminal Courts for custody of the vehicles on proof of ownership. The management contended that they had the first inkling of some thefts caming through some secret information on 31.08.1992. A F.I.R. & was lodged against the two workmen here and nine others and when the matter was entrusted to the police, they recovered the vehicles, acting on alleged disclosure statements made by the workmen and others about the thefts and the exact location of the vehicles. The workmen had, in the meantime, been placed under suspension on 01.12.1992 and the recoveries were made and produced before the Criminal Court. The cases before the Criminal Court were pending and the management had decided during the pendency of the case to terminate the services of the workmen alleged to have been involved in the incident. Original order was passed on 29.05.1995 setting out the incident of alleg