SAYAJI INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. T G MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR. Devang Nanavati. learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. U. T. Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. i. M. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The employer, being aggrieved by the award dated 14-2-1995 made by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 105 of 1987, is before this Court with a submission that the learned Court below was unjustified in directing reinstatement of respondent workman simply on the ground that he had worked 14 days in addition to his probation period.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for disposal of the present writ application are that the petitioner was appointed vide order dated 7-8-1985, he joined the service on 12-8-1985 and continued to work for a period of one year. On 11-8-1986, an order terminating the probation was issued, but, nowever, the same could be served upon the respondent workman on 25-8-1986. Being aggrieved by the termination, the workman filed the Reference and submitted to the Labour Court that as he had completed 14 days in excess of the probation period, it would amount to automatic confirmation. The employer appeared before the Court and raised various pleas including a submission that additional work beyond the probation period would not lead to automatic confirmation and present is a case where order terminating the probation, was issued on 11-8-1986 but could be served upon the other side on 25-8-1986.

(3.) AFTER recording evidence and hearing the parties, learned Labour Court observed that the order dated 11-8-1986 cannot be taken to be a genuine order, because, either on that day or on 25-8-1986 or on any other day, wages were not paid to the workman and wages came to be paid to the workman almost after about one month. The learned Court below ultimately held that if a workman had womed beyond the probation period, he will be deemed to be confirmed on the post.