SANDEEP GUPTA Vs. HINDUSTAN ANTIBIOTICS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Appeal assails the Order, dtd. 10/11/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No.6708/2003. It is a story of appointment, termination during the period of training and an order of reinstatement by the Labour Tribunal, followed by the impugned Order, which reversed the order of the Labour Tribunal and eventually upheld the termination.

(2.) As the devil often lies in the details, we may lay down the factual matrix of the case in brief. On 26/5/1988, the Appellant was appointed as a Junior Medical Representative (Trainee) by the Respondent-Company. The terms of appointment were sealed in a Letter of Appointment, dtd. 20/5/1988 and Service Agreement, dtd. 27/5/1988. The terms of appointment prescribed a mandatory training period of 12 months for the Appellant. The training period was extendable for a further period of 12 months. On 10/7/1989, the training of the Appellant was extended for a further period up to 26/11/1989.

(3.) In the aftermath of this letter, the Appellant addressed a letter dtd. 16/8/1989 to the Respondent claiming to be treated as a Medical Representative (Probationer) with effect from 26/5/1989 i.e., after the completion of one year training. The genesis of the letter lied in the contention that the training of the Appellant stood automatically terminated after the completion of 12 months and he was deemed confirmed as a Medical Representative with effect from the very next day after the completion of 12 months.