PRAFULL DATTATRAYA PORE Vs. J K CHEMICALS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed as a Clerk-cum-Compounder on a probation for a period of six months on 7th August 1978, by the respondent. The probation period was extended by the respondent by a letter dated 1st January 1979, on the ground that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Thereafter by a letter dated 23rd March, 1979, the petitioner was informed that the respondent found the petitioner unsuitable for the job for which he had been appointed and that, therefore, his appointment could no be confirmed. In the said letter, the petitioner was informed that the respondent had already started a search for a replacement and that the respondent would get another person. The respondent further informed the petitioner that that would not take more than one and a half month from the date of the said letter. The petitioner was given an option to discontinue if he so desired in the meanwhile. Thereafter by a letter dated 22nd May 1979, the respondent informed the petitioner that the respondent had already made an alternate arrangement to replace the petitioner and that, therefore, the petitioner's services were not required with effect from 24th May, 1979. The petitioner was asked to collect his dues from the cashier on that day.

(2.) The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Court at Thane under Item l(b) of Schedule IV to the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act"). In this complaint (ULP) No. 54 of 1979 the learned Labour Judge had to deal with two questions. Firstly, whether the petitioner could be said to be a probationer or whether he had become permanent by virtue of his having put in an uninterrupted service in a clerical capacity for a period of three months. Secondly, whether it could be said that the respondent had indulged in an unfair labour practice as complained by the petitioner.

(3.) It appears that the respondent-company is governed by the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It has no Certified Standing Orders and hence it is governed by the Model Standing Orders. Having regard to the provision in the Model Standing Orders as given therein, the petitioner had to be considered as a permanent employee and that, therefore, he could not have been treated as a probationer. The Labour Court accordingly gave a finding in this behalf in favour of the petitioner. This finding has not been accepted by the respondent, in this petition.