RAJAN M NANDE Vs. ZELL ATE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-workman is a qualified mechanical draughtsman from Sir Cusrow Wadia institute of Technology, Pune-1. He was earlier working with Antifriction Bearings Corporation limited, Lonavala for about 7 1/2 years on permanent basis. However, he joined the first respondent company (herein-after referred to as 'the company') as it had offered him better terms. Thus, he was appointed as a mechanical draughtsman by the company vide appointment letter dated July 14, 1980 in the first instance in probation for six months subject to extension, if necessary. Thereafter by a letter dated December 28, 1980 the company confirmed him with effect from January 1, 1981 along with five other employees. At that time the petitioner noticed that his monthly salary was reduced by Rs. 10/ -. He, therefore, made a grievance about it to his immediate superior. It is the case of the petitioner that instead of rectifying the anomaly created by reducing his monthly salary by Rs. 10/-, the company called back the letter of confirmation and did not return it to him and thereafter issued a letter of termination on June 18, 1981 on the ground that his work was not upto the required standard. The petitioner, therefore, contended that termination of his service was a mala fide and illegal act indulged in by the company under colorable exercise of the employer's right. Therefore, he raised an industrial dispute which came to be referred to the Second Labour Court at Pune, being reference (IDA) No. 256 of 1981 for his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

(2.) IN the Labour Court, the workman examined himself in support of his claim and the company its Personnel Manager, Mukund S. Kurlekar. On appreciation of the evidence adduced before him, the learned Labour Judge came to the conclusion that the company had a right to terminate the service of the workman and it was justified in doing so during the probationary period of the workman. According to the learned labour Judge, therefore, the termination of the service of the workman was proper and legal as he was not a confirmed employee and as such he was not entitled to any relief. The learned Labour Judge accordingly by his Award dated July 11, 1984 rejected the reference with no order as to costs.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner-workman invoked the supervisory writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution by filing the present writ petition.