RAMESH KUMAR Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - In the instant writ petition, the petitioner-workman has questioned the validity of the award passed by the Labour Court dated 30.9.1993 vide Annexure P-8.

(2.) The petitioner is stated to have been appointed as a Production Clerk with the second respondent-Industry. He was put on probation for a period of six months from the date of joining service and his services were confirmed on 5.3.1988 w.e.f. 26.2.1988. His services were discharged simpliciter on 26.6.1989. Aggrieved by the order of discharge, matter was referred to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. Labour Court passed award on 30.9.1993 against the petitioner. While confirming the order of discharge, it was further observed that petitioner might have been gainfully employed elsewhere. He is not entitled for any relief.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was on probation and his services have been confirmed. Therefore, question of discharge simpliciter may not arise in the absence of holding necessary departmental inquiry with reference to the alleged misconduct stated by the respondent-industry before the Labour Court as well as before this Court. It was submitted that inquiry was initiated only on appointing Inquiry Officer. Without completion of inquiry proceedings, petitioner's services have been discharged simpliciter. Question of discharging petitioner may not arise for the reasons that he is a confirmed employee. These facts and materials have not been taken into consideration by the Labour Court. Therefore, the award dated 30.9.1993 of the Industrial Tribunal Labour Court is liable to be set aside.