CHIEF EXECUTIVE Vs. VANJIBHAI LALJIBHAI CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Perused the record.

(2.) The petitioner - Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India) through Chief Executive has filed this petition challenging the award of the labour Court dated 30. 6.2008 in Reference (L.C.B.) No.41 of 1998, by which, the Labour Court directed that the respondent be reinstated in service with continuity and with 15% back wages. The case of the respondent - workman before the labour Court was, as stated in the Statement of Claim at Exh.7 that he was working as a Community Organizer cum Trainee. That he was appointed in December, 1994 on probation for a period of one year. That his services were terminated with effect from 30/12/1995 and, therefore, that termination amounted to retrenchment carried out in violation of the provisions of Sec. 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner apart from taking the objection as to the respondent being a workman and that the institution was a Trust and not "Industry" within the meaning of the definition of "Industry" under Sec. 2(j) of the Act also contended that the termination was not retrenchment and in fact it was putting an end to service during the course of probation. The labour Court, by the award under challenge not agreeing with the submission of the learned advocate for the employer opined that there was violation of the provisions of Sec. 25(F) of the ID Act and, therefore, ordered reinstatement.

(3.) Mr. Yogen N. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that reading the order of appointment and the subsequent extensions made from time to time would indicate that the appointment was purely on a probation. Before the expiry of the period of probation, a month before, on 30/11/1995, the Trust issued notice to the petitioner specifically stating that this communication be treated as a notice for one month for relieving the respondent with effect from 30/12/1995. That, according to Mr. Pandya, termination of service because of non-extension of probation would not be retrenchment. He would rely on a decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute v. Sanjay Chandrakant Vyas reported in 2001(3) GLH 732. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Saurashtra University v. Shambhubhai Hirjibhai Padalia reported in 2006(1) GLH 443.