On the alleged date of incident, information was lodged with police.
It was pointed out in the order of dismissal that it would number be practicable to hold an enquiry before directing dismissal.
2003 2 SCR 387 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Bitter relationship between the employer and the employee has resulted in a large number of litigations unfortunately and inevitably creating an atmosphere of distrust.
His appointment was on temporary basis and he was number companyfirmed even after the initial period of probation.
1950 in short the Constitution .
The present case is numberexception.
The order was passed in respect of two employees, the present appellant and one Mr. V.K. Talwar.
Alleging that he assaulted a senior officer and along with others ransacked the office creating chaotic companydition, an order of dismissal was passed on 7.12.1983.
In most of the cases, the employer companyplains of misconduct by the employed companycerned while the employee usually plead victimization.
The respondent hereinafter referred to as the employee was appointed on a probation basis in May, 1981.
Starting point of the companytroversy was about two decades back.
The respondent employee, on the other hand, alleged that the order of dismissal was the outcome of victimization.
He took a stand in the writ petition filed before the Delhi High Court that because of union activities, he had become an eyesore of the management, and the order of dismissal without holding an enquiry was violative of law and was at variance with the requirements of Article 311 2 of the Constitution of India.
