MITHAN LAL GOEL Vs. R K BAWEJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in CWP Nos. 1101/1973, 758/1974 and 123/1974. By the aforesaid judgment and order passed on 14th October, 1987, the learned Single Judge set aside the award passed by the Labour Court on 6th April, 1973 holding that the order of termination passed was neither illegal nor unjustified and, therefore, there was no question of making any payment to the workman for any period after the award and in normal course.

(2.) Facts giving rise to filing of the aforesaid writ petitions were that Sh.Mithan Lal Goel, one of the appellants herein, was appointed as Accounts Assistant at Rs.280/- per month by the management of M/s.Associated Traders and Engineers Pvt.Limited by letter dated 30th April, 1968. One of the stipulations in his appointment letter was that he was appointed as an Account Assistant in the Mori Gate office of the respondent w.e.f 28th February, 1968. It was also stipulated therein that said appointment was for a temporary period of three months on trial only and would automatically lapse unless renewed by a fresh letter or by entering into an agreement of service. It was also added therein that his services could be terminated without assigning any reason. Although the aforesaid appointment, as per the appointment letter and the terms and conditions stipulated therein, was to continue only upto 27th May, 1968 but by subsequent letters his employment was extended upto 27th May, 1969. Since one of the conditions in the letter of appointment dated 30th April, 1968 provided for continuation beyond the trial period by signing an agreement of service, both the parties entered into an agreement by signing the said agreement both by Mr.Goel and the management, on 9th May, 1969. Under the aforesaid agreement, the workman was required to furnish a surety. Accordingly, Sh.Goel furnished the surety of his son, who was shown as a dependant by him and, therefore, the said surety was not accepted by the management. Accordingly, the management wrote to Sh.Goel on 12th May, 1969 to furnish proper surety. Since, by then, the earlier period of temporary employment was due to expire, the management issued another letter dated 21st May, 1969 extending his temporary appointment for a further period of three months w.e.f 28th May, 1969 , as against which the workman expressed his surprise and wrote back that since he had already signed the agreement and only the question of surety had remained, he did not understand the meaning of writing a letter dated 21st May, 1969. The management by order dated 28th July, 1969 informed the workman that he would stand discharged from service with effect from 27th August, 1969.

(3.) So far the other workman Sh.Balraj Sharma is concerned, by agreement dated 25th January, 1967 he was appointed for a period of one year at a monthly salary of Rs.125/-. One of the conditions in his appointment letter was that his contract of employment would automatically stand terminated on the expiry of one year unless extended by mutual consent. Thereafter, the service of the workman was extended for a further period by the management by issuing letters to that effect till 24th July, 1969. The last of such letter was issued on 3rd April, 1969. However, though formal acceptance was given to previous orders of continuation, the said appointment was not formally accepted by the workman and, therefore, a letter was written by the management to Sh.Sharma on 2nd May, 1969 asking him to confirm whether he wished to continue in service, in the following manner:- ?oWe are informed by your immediate officer, Sh.Lekh Raj, Delivery I/C that you refused to fill in the agreement form to further continue your services with this company. Your period of service had expired on 25th January, 1969 and you are further required to give your option as to whether you wanted to continue your services with us or not. Since you failed to do the same we extended the period of service with the company upto 25th July, 1969 as a special case vide our letter S/449/69/1821 dated 3.4.69. We are now requesting you once again to let us know your decision as to whether you would like to continue your services with the company or not. Your period of service as mentioned above is due to expire on 25.7.69 and after that unless we get specifically in writing from you that you want to continue your services with us, we shall not be in a position to extend your period of service any more. Your reply should reach us within 10 days of the receipt of this letter failing which we shall presume that you are no longer interested in continuing your services with the company ? .