VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

690 DECISION - 342
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress,
1991 (1) SLJ SC 56 : AIR 1991 SC 101
Delhi Transport Corporation, a statutory body, terminated the
services of three permanent employees, a driver, a conductor and
an Assistant Traffic Incharge, for alleged inefficiency by exercising
the power of Regulation 9(b) of Delhi Road Transport Authority
(Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1962.
A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered the
question of constitutional validity of the right of the employer to
terminate the services of permanent employees without holding any
inquiry in certain circumstances by reasonable notice or pay in lieu
of notice and observed that the said regulation conferred wide power
of termination of services of the employee without following the
principle of audi alterem partem or even modicum of procedure of
representation before terminating the services of permanent
employee. In a system governed by rule of law, discretion, when
conferred upon executive authorities, must be confined within defined
limits. If a decision is taken without any principle or without any rule,
it is unpredictable and such a decision is the anti thesis of a decision
taken in accordance with the rule of law. The Supreme Court
observed that the regulation contains the much hated and abused
rule of hire and fire and unrestrained freedom of contract. The right
of life includes right to livelihood. The right to livelihood therefore
cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority. The
employment is not a bounty from them nor can its survival be at their
mercy. Income is the foundation of many fundamental rights and
when work is the sole source of income, the right to work becomes
as much fundamental. Fundamental rights can ill-afford to be
consigned to the limbo of undefined premises and uncertain
applications. The Supreme Court (by majority) held the said regulation
as arbitrary, unjust, unfair and unreasonable, offending Articles 14,
16, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution and is void under section 23
of the Indian Contract Act.