SARBJIT SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT AMRITSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge to the orders of termination of services of petitioners were on the basis that they were not termination simplicities but were in the nature of punishment. The petitioners in both the cases were probationers, who during the probation period doing services as Conductors in Punjab Roadways, were terminated from service. They obtained information that prior to the termination orders, there had been a marking of a report of the ticket checking staff that they had been guilty of some malpractices and the endorsement on the report showed the motivation of the Management for terminating the services.

(2.) The petitioners sought a reference to the Labour Court that termination was done without any enquiry and consequently, invalid and violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The references were rejected and the Labour Court held that both the petitioners were on probation however for two years, their services could be terminated at any time if the work and conduct was not unsatisfactory. No stigma was cast upon them and when they were removed from service after a report was made against them by the checking staff, the employer was naturally compelled to dispense with the services and that no benefit could be given to the workmen. The learned counsel for the workmen in their cases relies on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka State Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. Sheikh Abdul Khader and Others., 1983 AIR(SC) 1320 and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and Another, 1984 AIR(SC) 636 to contend that even the order of discharge of probationer would amount to retrenchment in certain circumstances. In the former case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) would cover every case of termination of services except those which have been embodied in the definition, discharge from employment or termination of service of a probationer would also amount to retrenchment. In the latter case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held while dealing with Article 311(2) of the Constitution that the order of discharge that merely camouflaged for an order of dismissal for misconduct is bound to be interfered if reasonable opportunity to defend is not given.

(3.) The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of this Court in Haryana Harijan Kalyan Nigam Limited and another v. H.K. Juneja, Ex-District Manager,1991 1 RSJ 723 that followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anoop Jaiswal to say that even a probationer is entitled to complain that the order of termination founded on the allegation of dishonesty is bound to be interfered with.