BRIJ MOHAN AGARWAL Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Brij Mohan Agarwal is arguing the matter in person. He has been heard on many days. He challenges the award of the Labour Court (I) U. P. Sarvodaya Napar, Kanpur. The award is dated December 22, 1975 (1985?). The petitioner was a probationer. The period of probation was for three months. He had worked for 17 days and the probationary period was drawn to a close, the asserts, abruptly. Messrs Hindustan Chains Private Limited, Kanpur, the employer, paid the petitioner for the duration of the period when he worked. This was 17 days. The petitioner was not satisfied with the action of the employer. He raised an industrial dispute after conciliation between the employer and the employee failed. Initially the State declined to refer the matter for adjudication in 1978, on being satisfied that it was not a matter which needs to be referred before the Labour Court. Three years later apparently the petitioner persuaded the State Government that the matter should be referred. Thus, it was referred to for adjudication belatedly before the Labour Court (I), Kanpur and was numbered as Adjudication Case No. 200 of 1973 (1983?). The Labour Court after having examined the matter, thereafter came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and certified the action of the employer of terminating the services of the petitioner after 17 days of work. The petitioner being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, aforesaid, filed the present petition before this Court.

(2.) This Court does not find the award of the Labour Court correct. The Court feels that, the petitioner's services could not be ended abruptly after 17 days regard being had to the contention of the employer that the period of probation was curtailed not because of misconduct but on the ground of simple inefficiency as the workman would not work. If that be so then the law is settled that probation must see its duration and the employer, if unsatisfied with the work of the workman, must bide his patience in ending the period of probation at the close of it and not midway, otherwise the probationary period will become a handle for an employer to fire a workman and resort to unfair labour practice in getting the workman during probation, fired prematurely. The employer may, the law suggests, curtail the period of probation prematurely only on account of misconduct. If such an action is taken then of course the workman is entitled to receive an opportunity to explain the charge of misconduct against him as it affects his personal credibility and reputation. These are, thus, the parameters of the dispute as examined by this Court.

(3.) The Court will revert to this aspect on merits later. It needs to be placed on record that the petitioner filed his petition, in effect, with a submission that he was an indigent person. This was when the Court enquired from him why he had not appended court fees on the writ petition. The Court was satisfied from the submission of the petitioner, otherwise too from the record, that he was such a person who is not in a position to pay expenses and court fees. At this juncture the court suggested to learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. that this is a case where the State must draw funds from the legal aid fund and provide court fees. In fairness, it must be said that the Standing Counsel immediately arranged for court fees which were appended on the writ petition. The Court also felt that the petitioner may need counselling and asked him whether he would require the services of the lawyer, though gratis. The petitioner accepted the suggestion of the Court and made a request that a lawyer be appointed to plead his case, Learned Counsel Mr. A.K. Sinha, Advocate of this Court was appointed; he is a young colleague of Mr. K.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate. Subsequently he had to withdraw as the petitioner made a submission before this Court that he does not desire the services of counsel and would argue the matter in person. As the court cannot interefere with the personal choice of the petitioner his wishes must prevail and arguments proceeded.