ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. A suit was filed by the respondent, who was working as a conductor in the establishment of the appellants, in which he sought for a declaration that the order of termination dated 24-2-1988 is null and void and also sought for the relief in respect of back wages and other consequential benefits. 3. The trial court on the basis of the pleadings, raised several issues on the question whether termination of services of the respondent is opposed to principles of natural justice and whether the respondent had remained unemployed after the order of termination. The trial court on the basis of the material on record and relying upon the pleadings and the evidence tendered by the respondent held that inquiry ought to have been conducted into the conduct of the respondent inasmuch as the stand of the appellants is that his work was not satisfactory and thereby, they could not have put an end to his services and thereafter decreed the suit as prayed for. The appeal filed thereto not being successful, the matter was carried in second appeal to the High Court. The High Court also took the view that inasmuch as the order terminating the services of the respondent is contrary to the principles of natural justice, which finding had been affirmed by the first appellate court, did not find any good reason to interfere in the second appeal. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the fact that the respondent had been appointed by an order made on 27-4-1987 as a daily wager and that too on ad hoc basis and his services were put to an end by an order dated 24-2-1988. The clear averment made by the appellants in the course of the pleadings in the trial court was that they did not rely upon any misconduct on the part of the respondent, but on the basis of the examination of the total service profile of the respondent, came to the conclusion that he does not deserve to be continued in service. This aspect was not dealt with in the light it was put forth before the trial court and rather it was dealt with in the light of other allied issues viz. This aspect was not dealt with in the light it was put forth before the trial court and rather it was dealt with in the light of other allied issues viz. whether the Court can uphold the order made by the authorities and whether that was the basis upon which his services had been terminated or not. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent very vehemently contended that inasmuch as certain incidents had taken place when the respondent was on duty and certain remarks had been made in the work sheet and on the basis of such misconduct, action having been taken, it was necessary that an inquiry should have been held. He also contended that when the stand of the respondent is that his services have been put to an end on the basis that his work was not satisfactory which means that the respondent admits that this factor of alleged misconduct has been taken note of arising out of a particular incident when certain remarks had been made against him and therefore necessarily, principles of natural justice were attracted to the case. We do not think that the learned counsel is justified in the contentions urged on behalf of the respondent. It is clear that though certain incident as alleged might have taken place, the clear stand of the appellants throughout has been that no particular incident has been taken note of on the basis of which, they have decided to terminate his services but on total service profile. We do not think that such examination as sought for by the respondent was required. 6. Further, the law is well settled that in cases of temporary employees, that too those who are appointed on ad hoc basis their services can be put to an end if the same are not satisfactory on examination of the total service record. If termination of services is as on that basis, no inquiry need be held. If that is so, all the courts have gone at tangent and have decided the matter on irrelevant facts, therefore, the orders made by the High Court affirming the orders of the trial court and the first appellate court shall stand set aside and the suit filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. 7. If that is so, all the courts have gone at tangent and have decided the matter on irrelevant facts, therefore, the orders made by the High Court affirming the orders of the trial court and the first appellate court shall stand set aside and the suit filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed. 7. However, the respondent has been put back to service on 18-8-1998 when the first regular appeal was pending before the first appellate court and he has continued in service till now. We do not think he should be relieved from the work and should not be disturbed, if his work is otherwise satisfactory. However, he shall not be entitled to any back wages as we have dismissed the suit itself. He may be treated to have been appointed from 18-8-1998. 8. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.