AMCO BATTERIES LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT NO 3

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-employer aggrieved by the award of the labour court (3), U. P., Kanpur, dated 9.6.1992 passed in Adjudication Case No. 97 of 1988 filed this writ petition challenging the same under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The following dispute was referred to by the State Government in exercise of power under Section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, vide its order dated 2.8.1988 before the labour court for adjudication. ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED)..

(3.) The labour court after receipt of the reference registered the case and issued notices to the respective parties. Parties have exchanged their pleadings and adduced oral and documentary evidence. The case set up by the petitioner-employer before the labour court was that the workman was appointed pursuant to an advertisement, which requires the person who is first class graduate, on probation and the workman was issued a letter of appointment for being appointed on probation period of six months, though the petitioner was not first class graduate and was appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs. 750 per month. His services, therefore, came automatically to an end after expiry of six months from the date of appointment, i.e., 31.7.1985. However, the employer further contended that thereafter the workman was not employed by the petitioner and was in fact employed by S. K. Sharma, the Sales Manager of the employer on his own and the employer have no concern that the workman's services have been terminated on 19.8.1987. The labour court after considering the material evidence on record have arrived at the conclusion that In fact the workman concerned has worked w.e.f. 1.8.1985, even beyond six months of the probation till 19.8.1987, therefore, he has worked for more than 240 days in the twelve calendar months and the employer have terminated his services without complying with the provision of Section 6N of the U. P, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'}, therefore, termination of his services are illegal and unjustified and directed for reinstatement of the workman concerned with continuity of service with full back wages.