SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 27.8.1997 (Annexure P4) passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak (Respondent-1) (Labour Court - for short) and for directing the General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak (respondent-3) to reinstate him in service with full back wages.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Driver by the General Manager, Haryana Roadways (respondent-3) on 17.8.1989 (Annexure P1). He continued to work upto 21.8.1990 when he was terminated from service. Aggrieved against his termination from service, he served a Demand Notice dated 4.12.1990 and raised an industrial dispute. The State Government referred the dispute raised by the petitioner to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act - for short). The reference was to the effect, whether the termination of service of Sukhdev Singh (petitioner) is justified and in order and if so, to what relief was he entitled to. The claim set up by the petitioner was that the management had violated the provisions of Sections 25F and 25H of the Act and there were persons junior to him who were still in service. The Labour Court held that the services of the Workman had been terminated during the period of probation and accordingly he was not entitled to any relief. The said order, as already noticed, is assailed in this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Labour Court has placed reliance only on Clause (1) of the appointment letter dated 17.8.1989 (Annexure-P1) of the petitioner wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of 2 years which may be extended to 3 years and that his services could be terminated if his work and conduct was not found satisfactory. It is submitted that the said Clause (1) cannot be read in isolation without considering the conditions provided in Clause (3), which enjoins the appointment of the petitioner to be terminated on one month's notice from either side provided that it is open to the government to make payment in lieu of notice. Therefore, it is contended that the termination of the petitioner being admittedly in violation of Clause (3) of his appointment letter inasmuch as no notice was issued before terminating the services of the petitioner, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It is also contended that the conduct of the petitioner was found to be not satisfactory on account of the fact that he had caused an accident. However, in the criminal case that was registered against the petitioner, he was acquitted by the learned JMIC, Rohtak vide his order dated 9.3.2006 (Annexure P5). Therefore, the petitioner is liable to be reinstated in service after quashing the impugned award of the Labour Court.