PFIZER LTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a pharmaceutical concern, having been merged with another company Parke-Davis (India) Ltd., by means of the present petition, has questioned the legality and validity of the award passed in adjudication case No. 33 of 2000 by the Industrial Tribunal(1), U.P. Allahabad in favour of its employee Shailendra Nath Vajpaee, the respondent No. 3 herein.

(2.) Indisputably, the respondent No. 3 was promoted/appointed as 'Area Sales Manager' in pursuance of the appointment letter dated February 12, 1997 w.e.f. January 1, 1997 on monthly consolidated salary of Rs. 7,700/- plus other benefits and subject to the other conditions enumerated therein. He was appointed on probation. His services were terminated in terms of clause 16 of contract of employment dated February 12, 1997 and for the reasons mentioned in various company's letters, referred therein, with immediate effect. The State Government, on April 28, 2000, in exercise of power under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act 1947, referred the dispute for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal to the effect- whether the termination of the services of the respondent No. 3 on September 10, 1998 is proper and/or illegal and if it is so, to what relief the said respondent is entitled.

(3.) The Industrial Tribunal, by the impugned award, negatived the contention of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 is not a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act as he was not holding a supervisory post and had no authority to take disciplinary action against the persons working under him. It also rejected the contention of the petitioner that since the respondent No. 3 was a probationer, his services could have been terminated in pursuance of the appointment letter, on the ground that the order terminating the service on account of unsatisfactory work, is stigmatic. A regular enquiry and opportunity of hearing before the termination is must. The further finding recorded is that having it found that the work of respondent No. 3 was not satisfactory, the petitioner should have reverted him to the original post on which he was confirmed. By the impugned award, after setting aside the termination order dated September 10, 1998, holding it to be illegal, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to treat the respondent No. 3 in service with continuity and also ordered the payment of back wages in its entirety.