LAWS(ALL)-1961-4-26

EVEREADY FLASHLIGHT CO Vs. LABOUR COURT

Decided On April 20, 1961
EVEREADY FLASHLIGHT CO. Appellant
V/S
LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Eveready Flash Light Company Limited Lucknow against an award of the Labour Court, Bareilly holding that the Company wrongfully and unjustifiably terminated, the service of Ram Bharose Sharma, one of their employees. The facts as alleged in the petitioner's affidavit or recorded in the award are these.

(2.) The respondent, Ram Bharose Sharma, was an employee of the petitioner-company on the date--21st November, 1958--when his services were terminated allegedly on the ground that he had failed to show any improvement in his work. The workmen through their Trade Union raised a dispute over his removal from service and the matter was referred by the Government for adjudication by the Labour Court, Bareilly. The parties filed their respective statements before that Court and led evidence. The employer alleged that Ram Bharose Sharma was employed by a letter of appointment dated 12th April, 1958, on the express condition that he would be on probation for a period of six months which could be extended from time to time at the discretion of the employer, and that his work was not found satisfactory and he was warned several times. Ultimately, the company was compelled to extend his period of probation by another four weeks. But there was no improvement in the quality of his work and on the 21st November, 1958, the company terminated his probationary appointment by a written notice served on him.

(3.) The case of the workmen was quite different. He alleged that he was appointed on 8th January, 1958, after a previous trial and at the time of the appointment he was assured that he would be kept as a permanent fitter. But on the 12th April, 1958, he was made to sign a document purporting to be a letter of appointment which virtually put him on an indefinite probation at the discretion of the employer. His case was that he was compelled Owing to economic difficulties to accept these unfair terms but the management, which had contrived to keep a whip-hand over him, became annoyed with him because he had become an active trade-union work rule on the 9th September, 1958, he was elected to the Working Committee of the Union and was declared a 'protected' workman in a pending dispute. On the very, next day he was served with a written notice alleging that his work was not satisfactory. According to the employee, this letter was written deliberately with the object of preparing the ground for his ultimate removal which must have been decided upon by the employer. In furtherance of this design, another written notice was served on him on 11th October, alleging; that his work had not improved and his period of probation was being extended. The final step was taken on 21st November, when the notice terminating his services was issued. The case of the employee was that he had been victimized for his trade union activities and he was not removed because his work was unsatisfactory.