FARIDABAD COMPLEX ADMINISTRATION Vs. PRESIDING OFFICERS INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Faridabad Complex Administration, Faridabad, through its Chief Administrator, has filed the present-writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award passed by respondent No. 1, in reference No. 313 of 1979, dated 3. 12. 1980, published in Haryana Govt. Gazette dated 3. 2. 1981 (Annexure P. 2) against Remphal son of Rameshwar Dass, Ex. Fireman.

(2.) IT has been alleged by the petitioner that respondent No. 2 Ram Phal was appointed to the post of Fireman in the Faridabad Complex Administration on 30. 7. 1975 vide appointment letter of even date, Annexure P. 1 In accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment respondent No. 2 was appointed on probation for a period of two years w. e. f. the dale of joining of his service without assigning any reason or notice. It was also provided in the appointment letter that respondent No. 2 would be governed by the Haryana Civil Services Rules to the ex tent enforced by the then Municipal Committee and other Rules framed and adopted from time to time by Faridabad Complex Administration. In pursuance of the said appointment letter, respondent No. 2 joined his duties on 4. 8. 1975. The services of respondent No. 2 were terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the said appointment letter. During the probation period without assigning any reason in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment letter on 25. 8. 77. Respondent No. 2 moved the appropriate Govt. for referring the dispute regarding termination of services to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and the Labour Court gave the impugned award dated 3. 12. 1980 which was published in the Haryana Govt. Gazette dated 3. 2. 1981. The challenge to the said award has been given by the petitioner on the grounds that the Labour Court committed a legal error while interpreting the provisions of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 2 was appointed on probation for 2 years and his services were governed by Haryana Civil Services Rules as applicable to the employees of Faridabad Complex Ad ministration and the services of the workman had been terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory record during probation period. The petitioner was fully justified in terminating the services of respondent No. 2 during probation period without assigning any reason in terms of the conditions of appointment letter. This aspect of the case has not been rightly appreciated by the Labour Court in the impugned award. In the given circumstance of the case, the provisions of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act were not applicable and with the passing of the impugned award An nexure P. 2 which is illegal and void, a serious prejudice has been caused to the petitioner.

(3.) THE case set up by the petitioner is that the services of the respondent No. 2 can be on probation for a period of 2 years. On account of the unsatisfactory performance of respondent No. 2, his services were terminated as per the terms of appointment letter and this action on the part of the petitioner does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Rather proviso of Section 2 (oo) would be applicable to the present case and it does not amount to retrenchment and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are not applicable. Annexure P. 1 is the letter of appointment which would show that respondent No. 2 was appointed as Fireman and it was specifically mentioned that his services will be on probation for a period of 2 years w. e. f. the date of joining the service. This letter further contemplates that services of respondent No. 2 could be terminated during the period of probation without any reason or notice with immediate effect. Respondent No. 2 accepted the terms of the appointment letter. The Labour Court has not dealt with this aspect in the award but has proceeded from a different angle by holding that the workman was in the employment of management from July, 1975 up to 25. 8. 1977 and that he had completed more than 2 years of service. Therefore, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act are applicable and compliance of the same has not been done by the management and the action on the part of the management in terminating the services of the workman was bad in law and accordingly it was set aside. It may be useful for me to refer to the operative portion of the award passed by the Labour Court which runs as follows;" I have gone through the document produced by the parties. I find that the workman was in the employment of the management from July, 1975 and till 25th August, 1977. It is admitted by the parties that the workman had continued in service of more than two years. As regards the status of the workman that he was probationer and still unconfirmed makes no difference under the Industrial Disputes Act because according to Section 2 (s) "workman" means :