INDO ALUSYSY INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. GNCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent no. 2-workman was appointed as a 'Stenographer' by the petitioner-management on 19th May, 1995 in the pay grade of Rs. 1600-175-3700/-. In terms of Clause 4 of letter of appointed (Ex. MW1/1) he was to remain on probation for period of 6 month from the date of joining his duties. During this probation period, his services were liable to be terminated at time. Upon successful completion of probation period his services were to be confirmed in writing. Clause 7 of the appointment letter further envisaged that after confirmation management could have terminated the service of workman at any time by giving him one month notice or salary in lieu thereof. Workman was also given right to leave the service of management by giving month's notice or surrendering salary in lieu thereof.

(2.) Workman challenged his termination being illegal and Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi referred the industrial dispute to Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication in the following terms:-

(3.) Upon scrutiny of evidence adduced by the parties, Industrial Adjudicator has held that termination of workman was not termination simpliciter on account of his unsatisfactory performance. His termination was punitive in nature for the misconduct alleged in the termination letter. In fact, misconduct alleged was the foundation of his termination. Misconduct was not the motive for termination of the workman. Termination was, thus, held punitive in nature. Since workman was terminated without issuing any show cause notice and holding an enquiry it was held bad in law. Reliance was placed on Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2002 92 FLR 1087, wherein it was held that probationer has no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during or at end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post in question. If for the his further retention in service or for, confirmation, an enquiry is held and it is on the basis of that enquiry that a decision is taken to terminate his services, the order will not be punitive in nature. But, if there are allegations of misconduct and order was enquiry is held to find out the truth of that misconduct and an order was passed for terminating his service on the basis of that enquiry, the order would be punitive in nature as enquiry was held not for assessing the general suitability of the employee for the post in question, but to find out the truth of allegation of misconduct against that employee. In this situation, the order would be found on misconduct, and it will not be a mere matter of 'motive'. In was further held that 'motive' is the moving power which impels action for a definite result or to put it differently, 'motive' is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act. An order terminating his service is an act done by his employee which impelled the employee to take this action. If it was the factor of general unsuitability of an employee for post held by him, the action would be upheld in law. If there were allegations of serious misconduct against the employee and a preliminary enquiry is held behind his back to ascertain the truth of those allegations and a termination order is passed thereafter, the order, having regard to other circumstances, would be found on the allegations of misconduct which were found to be true in the preliminary enquiry.