JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns the award dated 20.6.2016 passed by Labour Court No.1, Jaipur in LCR Case No. 96/2001 by which petitioner’s termination order dated 30.1.1986 has been found to be valid. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Driver for one year on probation vide order dated 13.9.1985 and his services were terminated during the period of probation vide impugned order dated 30.1.1986, as the same were not found to be satisfactory and found not dependable. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner approached the Labour Court on the ground that his termination order was punitive and stigmatic, hence without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing such an order should not have been passed. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court decided the claim against the petitioner by holding that he was on probation and probationer’s service can be terminated if his services are found to be unsatisfactory and no enquiry was required to be conducted as his termination order was neither punitive nor stigmatic. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it being a simple termination, no enquiry was required to be conducted after affording opportunity of hearing, but the order impugned is stigmatic, hence enquiry was required to be conducted. Counsel submits that the termination order runs in two parts - (i) services of the petitioner were “not found satisfactory”, and (ii) petitioner was “found not dependable”. Recording of reasons for “found not dependable”, amounts to stigma on the character of the petitioner, hence the impugned order dated 30.1.1986 is liable to be quashed and set aside. Counsel submits that the order is stigmatic and also punitive. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab AIR 2000 SC 1080 . 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no need for following the principles of natural justice while terminating the services of a probationer and the termination order of the petitioner refers to his unsatisfactory services and he was not found dependable, hence the order is neither stigmatic nor punitive. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no need for following the principles of natural justice while terminating the services of a probationer and the termination order of the petitioner refers to his unsatisfactory services and he was not found dependable, hence the order is neither stigmatic nor punitive. In support of his contentions he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Allahabad High Court in the case of Miss Manju Shikdar v. General Manager (Planning & Development) State Bank of Indore 2008 LLR 752 (Allahabad). Counsel submits that the order of termination was passed on 30.1.1986, while the dispute was raised in the year 2001. Counsel submits that the petitioner approached the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, but he has not disclosed the result of the said suit. Counsel submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper and the same does not warrant any interference of this court. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed on 13.9.1985 on the post of Driver, initially for a period of one year on probation and his services were found to be unsatisfactory and not dependable, hence he was removed from the said post on 30.1.1986. The petitioner has raised the industrial dispute in the year 2001 i.e. after a delay of fifteen years. No documentary evidence is available on the record that when the petitioner approached the Civil Court and when he withdrew the said suit for approaching the Labour Court invoking the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “Act of 1947”). (7.1) Be as it may, it is clear that for availing proper remedy, the petitioner approached the Labour Court for redressal of his grievance. Now the only issue which remains for adjudication of this court is “whether the impugned order dated 30.1.1986 is stigmatic, and whether any enquiry was required to be conducted after following the principles of natural justice?”. (7.2) This fact is not in dispute that the services of petitioner were not found to be satisfactory and not dependable during his one year probation period, and accordingly the same were terminated. 8. The law with respect to termination of services of a probationer is now well settled. (7.2) This fact is not in dispute that the services of petitioner were not found to be satisfactory and not dependable during his one year probation period, and accordingly the same were terminated. 8. The law with respect to termination of services of a probationer is now well settled. Termination has to be by a non-stigmatic order. If the services of a probationer is found not satisfactory, his termination order will not amount to the termination order being a stigmatic one. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chaitanya Prakash v. H. Omkarappa (2010) 2 SCC 623 , has held that there is no need to follow the principles of natural justice while terminating services of a probationer and even if the termination order refers to the unsatisfactory service of the probationer, the order is not stigmatic. Paras 18 and 21 of the said judgment would be useful to be reproduced here, which reads as under :- “18. It is no longer res integra that even if an order of termination refers to unsatisfactory service of the person concerned, the same cannot be said to be stigmatic. In this connection, we make a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhijit Gupta v. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences (2006) 4 SCC 469 , wherein also a similar letter was issued to the employee concerned intimating him that his performance was unsatisfactory and, therefore, he is not suitable for confirmation. We have considered the ratio in light of the facts of the said case and we are of the considered opinion that the basic facts of the said case are almost similar to the one in hand. There also, letters were issued to the employee concerned to improve his performance in the areas of his duties and that despite such communications the service was found to be unsatisfactory. In the result, a letter was issued to him pointing out that his service was found to be unsatisfactory and that he was not suitable for confirmation, and, therefore, his probation period was not extended and his service was terminated, which was challenged on the ground that the same was stigmatic for alleged misconduct. The Supreme Court negatived the said contention and upheld the order of termination. 19. xxx xxx xxx xxx 20. xxx xxx xxx xxx 21. The Supreme Court negatived the said contention and upheld the order of termination. 19. xxx xxx xxx xxx 20. xxx xxx xxx xxx 21. In Abhijit Gupta (Supra.), this Court considered as to what will be the real test to be applied in a situation where an employee is removed by an innocuous order of termination i.e whether he is discharged as unsuitable or he is punished for his misconduct. In order to answer the said question, the Court relied and referred to the decision of this Court in Allahabad Bank Officers Assn. v. Allahabad Bank (1996) 4 SCC 504 , where it is stated thus: “14. ...As pointed out in this judgment, expressions like ‘want of application’, ‘lack of potential’ and ‘found not dependable’ when made in relation to the work of the employee would not be sufficient to attract the charge that they are stigmatic and intended to dismiss the employee from service.” (8.1) In the case of Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 4 SCC 447 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that while taking a decision to terminate the services of the probationer, no notice is required to be given to the probationer nor is the probationer required to be given any opportunity of hearing. Para 10 of the said judgment reads as under :- “10. The aforesaid decision to release him from service was taken by the Respondents considering his overall performance, conduct and suitability for the job. While taking a decision in this regard neither any notice is required to be given to the Appellant nor is he required to be given any opportunity of hearing. Strictly speaking, it is not a case of removal as sought to be made out by the Appellant, but was a case of simple discharge from service. It is, therefore, only a termination simpliciter and not removal from service on the grounds of indiscipline or misconduct. Strictly speaking, it is not a case of removal as sought to be made out by the Appellant, but was a case of simple discharge from service. It is, therefore, only a termination simpliciter and not removal from service on the grounds of indiscipline or misconduct. While adjudging his performance, conduct and overall suitability, his performance record as also the report from the higher authorities were called for and they were looked into before any decision was taken as to whether the officer concerned should be continued in service or not.” (8.2) In the case of Progressive Education Society v. Rajendra (2008) 3 SCC 310 , it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that unless a stigma is attached to the termination or the probationer is called upon to show cause for any shortcoming which may subsequently be the cause of termination of the probationer’s services, the Appointing Authority is not required to give any explanation or reason for terminating the services except informing him that his services have been found to be unsatisfactory. (8.3) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunwar Arun Kumar v. U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd (1997) 2 SCC 191 , has held that during the period of probation, the authorities are entitled to assess the suitability of the candidates, and if it is found that the candidate is not suitable to remain in service, his services can be terminated without issuing notice or conducting any enquiry against him. It has been held in para 5 as under :- 5. The petitioner challenged the order of termination in the High Court. The High Court without going into the question whether or not it is a stigma, came to the conclusion that the respondents had totally lost confidence in the appellant and that he was totally unsuitable for the job for which he was employed and, therefore, he was found not entitled to any enquiry. Consequently, it dismissed the writ petition. Shri Sehgal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the finding recorded amounts to a stigma; action taken without conducting enquiry and giving an opportunity to the petitioner, is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the rules made thereunder. Therefore, he is entitled to an opportunity to being heard and be dismissed only on the ground of misconduct and not by termination simpliciter. Therefore, he is entitled to an opportunity to being heard and be dismissed only on the ground of misconduct and not by termination simpliciter. We do not agree with the learned Counsel. The reasons mentioned in the order may be a motive and not a foundation as a ground for dismissal. During the period of probation, the authorities are entitled to assess the suitability of the candidates and if it is found that the candidate is not suitable to remain in service they are entitled to record a finding of unsatisfactory performance of the work and duties during the period of probation. Under these circumstances, necessarily the appointing authority has to look into the performance of the work and duties during the period of probation and if they record a finding that during that probation period, the work and performance of the duties were unsatisfactory, they are entitled to terminate the service in terms of the letter of appointment without conducting any enquiry. That does not amount to any stigma. If the record does not support such a conclusion reached by the authorities, different complexion would arise. In this case, they have recorded the finding that the petitioner was regularly absent on one ground or the other. Under these circumstances, the respondents terminated his services. We do not find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents.” (8.4) Reiterating the earlier views, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Unit Trust of India v. T. Bijaya Kumar Patra 1993 (1) LLJ 240 , has held that a probationer’s services can be terminated during his probation if the same were not found satisfactory and it has also been held that an order of discharge is not an order of punishment, so there is no need of any hearing before termination of service. It has been held in para 10 as under :- “10. In State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das this Court held that the services of a probationer can be terminated in accordance with the rules because a probationer has no right to the post held by him. The very purpose of placing a person on probation is to try him during the probation period to assess his suitability for the job in question. The very purpose of placing a person on probation is to try him during the probation period to assess his suitability for the job in question. It is settled law that an order of discharge is not an order of punishment and, therefore, there was no question of giving a hearing before termination of service. The decisions in Madan Mohan Prasad v. State of Bihar, Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India do not take any different view.” (8.5) Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Allahabad Bank Officers Association v. Allahabad Bank (1996) 4 SCC 504 , has pointed out the expressions like "want of application”, “lack of potential” and “found not dependable” when made in relation to the work of the employee would not be sufficient to attract the charge that they are stigmatic and intended to dismiss the employee from service. 9. Hence, in view of above judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the expression “found not dependable” does not amount to any stigma upon the petitioner. Therefore, his termination order is not sigmatic and punitive, which requires any enquiry to be conducted. It is now settled law that there is a difference between motive for removal and foundation for removal, and once unsatisfactory services or any misconduct is only the motive for removal, and is not the foundation for removal, it is not necessary that principles of natural justice have to be followed before termination of services of such a probationer. 10. In view of the above, this court is of the opinion that the impugned order of termination dated 30.1.1986 is not stigmatic, which can prejudice the future of the petitioner. The Labour Court has not committed any error in passing the award against the petitioner. 11. In view of the discussion made herein above, this petition fails and accordingly the same is dismissed. 12. Stay application and all application(s) pending if any, also stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.