MOHAN LAL Vs. MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT ELECTRONICS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Mohan Lal was employed with the respondent M/s. Bharat Electronics Limited as Salesman at its Delhi Sales Depot on a salary of Rs. 520/- Per month from 8th December, 1973. His service was abruptly terminated by letter dated 12th October, 1974 with effect from 19th October, 1974. Consequent upon this termination, an industrial dispute was raised and the Delhi Administration, by its order dated 24th April, 1976 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court. Delhi for adjudication:

(2.) As the respondent management at one stage failed to participate in the proceedings, the reference was heard ex parts and the Labour Court made an award on 2nd May, 1977 directing reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service and full back wages at the rate of Rs. 520/- per month from the date of' termination till re-instatement. Subsequently, respondent moved for setting aside the ex parte award and seeking permission to participate in the proceedings which motion was granted. The respondent inter alia contended that the appellant was a salesman appointed on probation for six months and subsequently on the expiry of the initial period, the period of probation was extended up to 8th September, 1974 and on the expiry of this extended period of probation, his service was terminated by letter dated 12th October, 1974, as he was not found suitable for the post to which he was appointed.

(3.) The Labour Court, on evaluation of evidence both oral and documentary, held that the termination of the service was in accordance with the standing orders justifying the removal of the employee on unsuccessful probation during the initial or extended period of probation; and therefore the termination in this case, according to the Labour Court, would not constitute retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) read with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly it was held that the termination was neither illegal nor improper nor unjustified and the claim of the appellant was negatived. Hence, this appeal by special leave.