D T C Vs. RANDHIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition challenges the Award dated 24th March, 2004 passed in I.D. No. 157/97 by the Labour Court No.VII. Delhi (in short the 'Labour Court') by which the reinstatement of the respondent/workman was granted but 50% of the back wages were denied.

(2.) By the impugned award the Tribunal recorded the following findings:-

(3.) Mr. Malik, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has cited a judgment in Registrar, High Court of Gujarat & Anr. Vs. C.G.Sharma reported as 2004 Suppl. 1 AD (S.C.) 183 and in particular has relied upon the para 26 thereof which reads:- "26. A large number of authorities were cited before us by both the parties. However, it is not necessary to go into the details of all those cases for the simple reason that sub-rule 4 of Rule 5 of the is in pari material with the Rule which was under consideration in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Veerappa Saboji & Anr. (Supra) and we find that even if the period of two years expires and the probationer is allowec to continue after a period of two years, automatic confirmation cannot: be claimed as a matter of right because in terms of the Rules, work has to be satisfactory which is a prerequisite or pre-condition for confirmation and, therefore, even if the probationer is allowed to continue beyond the period of two years as mentioned in the Rule there is no question of deemed confirmation. The language of the Rule itself excludes any chance of giving deemed or automatic confirmation because the confirmation is to be ordered if there is a vacancy and if the work if found to be satisfactory. There is no question of confirmation and, therefore, deemed confirmation, in the light of the language of this Rule, is ruled out. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the respondent on this aspect has no merits and no legs to stand. The learned Single Judge and the learned Judges of the Division Bench have rightly come to the conclusion that there is no automatic confirmation on the expiry of the said of two years and on the expiry of the said period of two years, the confirmation order can be passed by only if there is vacancy and the work is found to be satisfactory. The rule also does not say that the two years' period of probation, as mentioned in the rule, is the Maximum period of probation and the probation cannot be extended beyond the period of two years. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no question of automatic or deemed confirmation, as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. We, therefore, answer this issue in the negative and against the respondent." In my view the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with an issue of automatic confirmation after the completion of the two years probation period and involved an interpretation of a particular rule. The Labour Court in the present case has only held that the respondent/workman was continued in employment for five years and was regularly employed and he had completed one year service without complaint and or enquiry. Since there is no established complaint against the respondent/workman nor any lack of vacancy has been pleaded by the petitioner/management the premises underlying in the above judgment of C.G.Sharma's case(supra) do not exist in the present case. Consequently the above judgment in C.G.Sharma's case (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case.