SAMSON JAYASINGH Vs. MALAYALAM PLANTATIONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was an employee of the first respondent. He was appointed on probation by letter dated 22-1-1975. That letter says that the petitioner was to be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining service. It further says:

(2.) As a result of the action of the management terminating the services of the petitioner, an industrial dispute arose and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Quilon, which by the award in I. D. No. 56 of 1978 found that the termination of the services of the petitioner was on "bona fide grounds". It was further found that the petitioner was not entitled to reinstatement. Nevertheless the court found that the services of the petitioner bad not been validly terminated as there was no proper retrenchment in terms of S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This award came into force 30 days after the date of its publication which was on 28-2-1984.

(3.) The award is challenged by the employee-petitioner on the ground that the Labour Court was not justified in refusing reinstatement with full backwages when the court found that there was no valid retrenchment of the petitioner in terms of S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Counsel for the Petitioner Shri. P. V. Abraham contends that until the petitioner is validly retrenched he is deemed to continue in service of the employer and is therefore entitled to all the benefits, which be would have received had he not been kept out of service, including the financial benefits arising from the time-scale. Counsel submits that, in the absence of any order of confirmation, the petitioner should be deemed to have been confirmed and is thus entitled to be treated as a working member of the staff for the purpose of seniority and financial benefits.