PARNANAND Vs. NAGAR PALIKA DEHRADUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us is working in the first-respondent Nagar Palika, Dehradun. He claimed that his services were terminated on october 31, 1987 without any prior notice or information or after holding a domestic enquiry, much less based on any reason and raised a dispute under the U. P. Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The said dispute was referred to the Labour Court at Dehradun.

(2.) After notice, the first respondent raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the labour Court to hear the matter on the ground that it is not an "industry" for the purpose of the Act and the appellant did not fall within the definition of "workmen". It is also contended that (i) there is a rule of the Nagar palika that two brothers cannot be employed to equivalent posts and the appellant's brother was also working in a similar post held by the appellant; (ii) the appellant was a probationer on the date of his termination; he had been appointed on December 16, 1986, placed on probation for a period of one year and his services had been terminated on October 31, 1987. Before the expiry of that period his services had been put an end to. Hence the provisions of Section 6-N of the Act would not be attracted. The Municipality also contended that the work of the appellant was not satisfactory during the probation period.

(3.) The Labour Court examined the matter on all aspects raised before it. It held that the Engineering Department of the first respondent was engaged in an activity which can be termed to be an industry and therefore held that the appellant fell within the definition of "workmen". So far as the termination of services of the appellant on the basis that his brother was also employed, it was noticed that there was no rule available in the Nagar Palika to terminate such service. Even otherwise, it was held that the workman being retrenched should comply with Section 6-N of the Act. The Labour Court also noticed that the evidence tendered through dw 1 (an officer of the Municipality) on behalf of the employer that he himself was not aware whether the appellant's work was satisfactory or not during the probation period. No other material was produced before the labour Court to show that his services had been terminated on that ground. Therefore, the labour Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and passed an award accordingly.