The article focuses on the termination of the contract of employment without notice, due to employee’s fault, because of the commission of the obvious crime, during the contract of employment; the crime disallows the further employment on the workplace (what is definied in art. 52 § 1 point 2 L.C.). The author comes to the conclusion, that a obvious crime is a crime which existence is certain, undisputed, there is no objective doubts as to its existence, the evidence of its commission do not raise any doubt; facts of the case ensures, that the employee has committed a crime. The obvious crime is also characterized by the fact, that it make impossible further employment of an employee who committed this obvious crime on the workplace. This impossibility should not be an objective impossibility to continue the employment on the workplace, but in common sense, should argue for an immediate removal this employee from his workplace. However, the author takes the assumption that art. 52 § 1 point 2 L.C. is not compatible with art. 42 paragraph 3 of the Constitution, because it violates the principle of the presumption of innocence. It allows for the assignment of a crime (obvious) to the employee, even though there is no final judgment of the court.