FRICK INDIA PRIVATE LTD Vs. VIJAY BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the award made by respondent No. 2 Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad on September 1,1984 published in the Haryana Gazette dated November 13, 1984, copy Annexure P-13, vide which the order of termination of the workman, Vijay Bahadur Singh respondent No.1 passed by the petitioner was declared illegal and void and the workman was held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Vijay Bahadur Singh was employed as a Fitter by the petitioner Frick India Pvt. Limited, Faridabad initially on November 27, 1981 on a probation of six months. The work of respondent No.1 was not found satisfactory and he was asked to improve his work. Respondent No.1 was, however, not interested in the service with the petitioner and left the job in search of a better employment on June 2, 1982. The full and final account of respondent No. 1 was settled and paid to him vide voucher produced in the proceedings before the Labour Court as Ex. M-14. Respondent No. 1-workman, Vijay Bahadur Singh, however, again applied to the petitioner for fresh appointment on June 10,1982 vide his application Ex. M-3 and a copy of which was placed with the writ petition as Annexure P-1. vide letter of appointment dated June 29, 1982, the petitioner offered appointment to respondent No. 1 as Fitter (semi skilled) w.e.f. June 13, 1982 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment, copy of Annexure P-2. vide condition No. 3 mentioned in the appointment letter, respondent No. 1 was offered job for a period of six months which could be extended at the discretion of the Management. Respondent No. 1 was specifically informed that during the period of probation his services could be terminated without assigning any reason and without any notice of payment of compensation in lieu thereof. He was told that on satisfactory completion of probationary period he could be considered for confirmation on the said post in the petitioner- Company and a separate letter to that effect would be issued to him by the petitioner. In case no such letter was issued by the petitioner, respondent No. 1-workman would continue to be on probation. After confirmation the service of respondent No.1 could be terminated by the Management with one month notice or salary in lieu thereof. A proviso was added that in case the service of respondent No. 1 was terminated for misconduct entailing dismissal, he will not be entitled to any notice of payment in lieu of such notice. Respondent No.1-workman was at liberty to leave the service of the Company after giving one month notice or one month salary in lieu thereof. Respondent No.1-joined the services of the petitioner on the post of the Fitter (semi skilled) aforesaid w.e.f. June 13, 1982. During the period of probation of six months, the petitioner found that respondent No. 1 was not taking any interest in his work. The Initiating Officer, however, recommended that respondent No.1 be given three months extension vide endorsement made on the confidential Memo Annexure P-3. Accordingly, the period of probation of respondent No.1- Vijay Bahadur Singh was extended by three months vide letter dated December 13, 1982, copy Annexure P-4, issued by the Personnel Department, Respondent No.1 was asked to improve his services and was advised that if he failed to improve his working and the same continued to be unsatisfactory, the said letter will be treated as a notice and service will come to an end after the expiry of the notice. However, if his work was found to be satisfactory he was deemed to have been confirmed if a letter of confirmation is issued to him. Towards the end of extended period of probation the report of the Initiating Officer appended in the remarks column of confidential memo, Annexure P-5, was as under: "Remarks: He is not suitable. His services may be terminated."

(3.) Resultantly, vide letter dated March 12, 1983, copy Annexure P-3 the Personnel Manager communicated to respondent No. 1 about the termination of his services w.e.f. March 12, 1983. A.N. A copy of termination letter was sent to respondent No. 1 at his home address in Village Patar, P.O. Tajpur Dehma, Distt. Ghazipur, (U.P.) vide Annexure P-7. The Personnel Manager sent a memo to the Accounts Department of the petitioner directing to pay to respondent No.1 his full and final payment as per details given in the letter which are as under: