Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs Ghanshyam & Ors

Leave granted.

The respondent was appointed to the post of Driver-cum-Conductor on trial basis and joined duty on 11th May, 2005. His letter of appointment clearly stated that his appointment was upto 30th June, 2005. On 21st May, 2005 when the respondent was driving a bus belonging to the appellant the bus met with an accident resulting in death of two persons. Thereafter, the contract of employment of the respondent was terminated on 27th May, 2005.

The respondent filed a petition in the High Court challenging the termination order. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the respondent should have been given an opportunity to defend himself and further held that he has not been found negligent in the criminal case and therefore respondent could not be said

to be negligent and the High Court not only set aside the order of termination but also virtually renewed the contract to make the respondent a permanent employee and entitled him to back wages for the entire period.

The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. We are constrained to observe that though the order of the Division Bench runs into 6 pages, 5 pages are repetition of the judgment of the learned Single Judge verbatim and the only reasoning, if it can be called that, is as follows:

"We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned single judge. Therefore the appeal being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismisses."

We have therefore decided to hear the matter on merits.

Contractual employees especially ones who have been appointed for less than three months cannot claim to have a right to continue after three months. In such cases when an employee causes loss to the employer the services can be dispensed with. We are not in any manner observing that the contractual employees have no right to be regularized but that will happen after a substantial period of service rendered on daily wage or on contractual basis.

Here the respondent caused an accident resulting in the death of two people within 15 days of employment and we are sure that the appellant corporation must have been burdened with huge amount of compensation that would have been paid to the legal representatives of the said deceased persons.

The High Court erred in holding that in such a case regular inquiry should have been conducted. There is no provision for conducting inquiry in case of contractual employees or daily wage employees. In the present case the Corporation was well within its right to rescind the contract of employment even if it was before the period when the contract was to terminate. The Court cannot force such an employee on the employer.

We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the orders passed by the Division Bench and the Single Bench of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent.