ORDER : 1. This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that: (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the judgment dated 3.10.2012 (Annex.9) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and the claim petition filed by the petitioners be ordered to be allowed as prayed. (b) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. (c) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Conductor on 19.03.1984 by the respondent-Corporation, and he accordingly joined his duty at Banswara Depot. While the petitioner was posted as Conductor in a bus, on 27.04.1984, some of the passengers were neither taking the tickets nor paying due fare and indulged in quarrelling with the petitioner (Conductor), which was brought to the notice of the inspection team by the petitioner. However, as per the petitioner, the inspection team, despite charging double fare from the said passengers and while ignoring the aspect brought to their notice by the petitioner, held that the petitioner’s conduct falls within the term ‘misconduct’. The impugned action of termination of services of the petitioner was immediately taken on the same date i.e. 27.04.1984 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, on the erroneous ground that at the time of inspection of the bus in question in which the petitioner was discharging duties as Conductor, certain passengers were found without tickets. 2.1 The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent-Corporation on 07.05.1984, wherein the petitioner has also moved an application on 01.01.1987 indicating therein that in case, the appeal is not heard and decided by the respondent-Corporation within a reasonable period of time, he would be left with no option but to move the competent Court for redressal of his grievance. Since despite such application, no decision has been taken by the respondent-Corporation in the appeal filed by the petitioner, he instituted a suit for declaration before the competent Court in the year 1988, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.1994 on the ground of delay. Since despite such application, no decision has been taken by the respondent-Corporation in the appeal filed by the petitioner, he instituted a suit for declaration before the competent Court in the year 1988, which was dismissed vide order dated 25.07.1994 on the ground of delay. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, but when the conciliation was not successful, the failure report was forwarded by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government, who in turn, referred the dispute to the Industrial Disputes Tribunal and Labour Court (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) Udaipur vide notification dated 08.07.2010. 2.2 The petitioner filed a claim case (Registered as Case No. 17/10 L.C.R.) before the learned Tribunal and the respondents filed a written statement. After completion of the proceedings in the case, the learned Tribunal vide impugned order/award dated 03.10.2012 rejected the claim of the petitioner, while upholding the termination order dated 27.04.1984 passed against the petitioner by the respondent-Corporation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned termination order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, nor any amount in lieu of notice was paid to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner took his stand before the respondent-Corporation that on the relevant date, the passengers in the bus were not taking the tickets and were quarreling with the petitioner, and the said fact was also duly brought to the notice of the Inspection Team. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was appointed against the permanent post after following the due selection process, and thus, it was necessary for the respondent-Corporation to follow the proper procedure before terminating the services of the petitioner, but the respondent-Corporation without any inquiry terminated the services of the petitioner and the same was upheld by the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order, which is not justified in law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the impugned termination order was passed because of the misconduct on the part of the petitioner, and thus, the same is justified in law. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was never a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation, rather was appointed on daily wage basis. 4.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was never a regular employee of the respondent-Corporation, rather was appointed on daily wage basis. Learned counsel also submits that on the date of termination of his services, the petitioner had not completed 240 days in the preceding calender year, and rendered his service only for a period of 36 days, and therefore, the termination was rightly upheld by the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner was appointed as Conductor on 19.03.1984, and while he was posted in Banswara Depot, an act of misconduct was found on his part in discharge of his duties and he was terminated from the services on 27.04.1984. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent-Corporation on 07.05.1984, and during pendency of the appeal, he also filed a suit for declaration. The said suit was dismissed on the ground of delay by the competent Court vide order dated 25.07.1994. 7. This Court further observes that the petitioner raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer, but the conciliation proceedings were failed, whereafter, upon receipt of the failure report, the said dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to the learned Tribunal on 08.07.2010, whereupon, the learned Tribunal after the completion of the proceedings, passed impugned order/award dated 03.10.2012 rejected the claim of the petitioner and upheld the termination order dated 27.04.1984. 8. This Court also observes that the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis and it was not a permanent employment. This Court further observes that the learned Tribunal in the impugned order observed that a total number of 26 passengers were found in the vehicle without tickets, as pointed out by the Inspection Team at time of checking the said vehicle. 9. This Court further observes that as per exhibit W-1 at the time of the appointment of the petitioner on the post in question, a condition was mentioned that if any misconduct is found on the part of the petitioner, then his services shall be terminated, which is recorded in the impugned order. 9. This Court further observes that as per exhibit W-1 at the time of the appointment of the petitioner on the post in question, a condition was mentioned that if any misconduct is found on the part of the petitioner, then his services shall be terminated, which is recorded in the impugned order. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 03.10.2012 is reproduced as hereunder: ^^ftl nLrkost Án'kZ MCY;w&1 ds vk/kkj ij lsok esa fy;s tkus ds vk/kkj ij ÁkFkhZ mifLFkr gqvk gS mlh nLrkost ds ist la[;k 2 esa fuEu 'krsZ vafdr dh xbZ ftlesa 'krZ la[;k 3 bl Ádkj gS fd ^^fdlh Hkh Ádkj dk Hkz"Vkpkj dk ekeyk Ádk'k esa vkus ij rqjUr csx tek dj fn;k tkosxkA** bl ekeys esa Lo;a ÁkFkhZ dh Áfr ijh{kk ds vuqlkj cl esa dqy 26 lokfj;ka Fkh rFkk lHkh ds ikl fVfdV fujh{k.k ds le; ugha ik;s x;s FksA blls T;knk Hkz"Vkpkj dk dksbZ mnkgj.k gks gh ugha ldrk rFkk 'krZ la[;k 3 ds vuqlkj foi{kh us ;fn csx mlh fnu tek djds lsok eqDr dj fn;k rks fof/k dh }f"V esa dksbZ =qfV ugha gSaA** 10. This Court also observes that the petitioner himself mentioned in the claim petition before the learned Tribunal that some passengers are not taking tickets and they are quarelling with the petitioner, but did not produce any evidence to substantiate his claim that there was no misconduct on the part of the petitioner. This Court further observes that the petitioner rendered his services only for a very short period, precedent the date when the misconduct in question was found against the petitioner in discharge of his duties. 11. This Court further observes that the conduct in question of the petitioner was sufficient to cause loss not only to the department, but to the entire public exchequer, and therefore, the termination of the petitioner’s services was done, and the said action has rightly been upheld by the learned Tribunal vide the impugned order. 12. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 13. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.