SUDIPTA NAG Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who is a workman was employed by the respondent No. 2 on October 1, 1988 and was put in on probation for three months. It was further extended by order dated January 1, 1989. On January 28, 1989 an incident occurred which led to his eventual termination on February 16, 1989. The workman succeeded in getting a reference made before the Labour Court, Bombay and the learned Presiding Officer of the Seventh Court dealt with Reference IDA No. 96 of 1991 by his order dated November 21, 1996. He disallowed the prayer for reinstatement but directed the employer-respondentNo.2 to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the workman. This order of the trial Court is not challenged by the employer.

(2.) The workman of course is not satisfied with this order and seeking reinstatement he has filed the present petition. The termination order is at Exh. A. Page 12. In the first paragraph while informing the petitioner that his services are terminated with effect from February 16, 1989, it has been stated that this action is on disciplinary ground.

(3.) Naturally this left the petitioner with a grievance that while on probation if his services were terminated as it was unsatisfactory, there probably could have been no grievance with the petitioner. However, when stigma is attached by use of the words "on disciplinary ground" which forms the last three words of the first paragraph referred to above, least that was expected from the employer was to hold an enquiry.