RICHPAL SINGH Vs. SECRETARY LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Richpal Singh, petitioner by this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenges (i) the order dated 8th April, 1974 (AnnexureP-l) whereby his period of probation was extended without giving any reasons, (ii) order dated 26th April, 1974 (Annexure P-2) whereby his services were terminated (iii) order dated 6th February, 1975 (Annexure P-3) refusing to refer his disputes to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court and (iv) Order dated 23rd September 1975 (Annexure P-4) refusing to re-consider and refer his grievances to the Industrial Tribunal Court. The petitioner has prayed for his reinstatement in service with retrospective effect and consequential benefits such as payment of salary and other allowances.

(2.) Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was appointed as a Conductor with effect from 1st December, 1972 on probation for a period of one year under the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 (for short 'the Regulations of 1952') by Delhi Transport Corporation (respondent No. 2). Respondent No. 2 through Asstt. PeKrsonnel Officer (respondent No. 3) issued a memorandum dated 8th April, 1974 (Annexure P-l) extending his period of probation till further order. He received from respondents 2 and 3 another memorandum dated 26th April, 1974 (Annexure P-2) terminating his services with effect from 27th April, 1974. The petitior made representation dated 14th May, 1974 (Annexure P-6) and submitted that his services were illegally terminated, that the termination was mala fide under the garb of discharge simpliciter based on unfair labour practice to victimize and penalize him and requested that he may be reinstated. He also submitted his claim before the Conciliation Officer (Annexure P-7). Respondent No. 2 in its reply dated 20th July, 1974 (Annexure P-8) before the Concilication Officer stated that the petitioner was on probation for one year and his services were liable to termination at any time without notice and without assigning any reason, that his services were terminated with effect from 27th April, 1974, that the reasons for extension of the period of probation and termination of his services was obviously unsatisfactory performance.

(3.) By order dated 6th February, 1975 (Annexure P-3) Under Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration, Delhi (respondent No. 1) informed the petitioner that the Lt. Governor of the Union Territory of Delhi did not consider the alleged dispute a fit one for reference to the Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication. The petitioner made a further representation (Annexure P-9) along with statement of claim dated 21st July, 1975 (Annexure P-10) requesting the Conciliation Officer to re-consider the memorandum dated 6th February, 1975 refusing to refer his dispute submitting that the order of termination was by way of punishment, that the extension of probation period was in excess of authority. The petitioner also requested by letter dated 19th September, 1975 (Annexure P-ll) to the Labour Commissioner, Delhi to afford a personal hearing. The Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration, Delhi (Respondent No. 1) by letter dated 23rd September, 1975 (Annexure P-4) informed the petitioner that there were no grounds for review of the decision dated 6th February, 1975. On these allegations the petitioner has prayed for the issue of appropriate writ for quashing the aforesaid four orders.