Rajinder Weaving Factory vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—Ram Singh, Respondent No. 2 was appointed on daily wages as apprentice/probationer for a period of six months. He is alleged to have been relieved from service with effect from 23rd July, 1971, and finding the termination to be erroneous, he raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Rohtak.

Before the Labour Court, the case of the workman was that he was in employment of the management for a period of six months on probation on the expiry of which he became a regular employee and he was not given any job for some time before termination of his services on 23rd July, 1971, and after that date he was not allowed to enter the factory premises. The claim of the workman was disputed by the management by filing a written statement, copy annexure P. 5. Thereafter, evidence was led by the parties and the Labour Court by award, dated 28th December, 1973, copy annexure P. 6, held that the termination of the services of the workman was not justified and ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and full back-wages. Against the aforesaid award, the management has come up in the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has urged two points, firstly, that the finding of the Labour Court that there was no material on the record that the workman was absent with effect from 16th July, 1971 to 23rd July, 1971, is against the record as there was material in the nature of statement of R.S. Rohtagi, M.W. 1, which has been reproduced in para 8 of the writ petition, and secondly, that the workman was on the second probationary term of six months during which his services could be terminated without a cause and the Labuor Count was in error in coining to the conclusion that after 12th July, 1971, he automatically became a regular and permanent employee and for this matter, reference has been made to last page of annexure P-l, which is at page 47 of the paper-book.

For the first point, a reference to para 8 of the writ petition, wherein statement of the workman as well as the partner of the management have been reproduced, coupled with the stand taken before the Labour Court, goes to show that the workman''s case was that he was wanting to work but was not allocated any job and his entry after 22nd July, 1971, was refused, whereas the case of the management was that the workman absented from duty from 16th July, 1971 to 23rd July, 1971. This aspect of the case has been gone into by the Labour Court which is purely of fact and this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction, cannot reappraise the evidence and take a different view. Once the work man is not allowed to work from 16th July, 1971 to 23rd July, 1971. the management will not mark his presence and therefore, even if the attendance register is produced, it cannot be conclusively held that the workman was not right in his stand that he was not allowed to work as no job was allocated to him.

As regards the second point, it does bear out from the last part of annexure P-4 at page 47 of the paper-book, that the workman was to have an extended period of probation of six months in case he was not removed from service on the completion of the first probationary period of six months. But, no such stand is contained either in the writ petition or in the written statement, annexure P-5, filed before the Labour Court. The case of the workman throughout has been that after the period of six months he became a regular employee and his services could be dispensed with only after a show-cause notice and enquiry and not without a cause. This case was met only by conditions of services Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 13, contained in annexure P-l, at pages 41, 43 and 45 of the paper-book and not on the basis that there was an extended period of probation during which his services could be terminated. Accordingly, the management cannot be allowed to raise a new plea in the writ jurisdiction.

Still in the interest of justice, it was specifically pointed out to the learned Counsel for the management if he could cite any authority for the proposition that under the Industrial Disputes Act, the services of a workman during the probationary period could be terminated without a cause. He could not cite any authority but wanted to rely on The Salem District Textile Workers Union Vs. The State of Madras and Another, , a reading of which clearly goes to show that it goes against the management as it was held that services of a probationer could not be terminated before the expiry of the probationary period. Even if the workman was serving under the extended period of probation, which started from 13th July, 1971, his services could not be terminated on the 10th day without giving him an opportunity to show cause and after due enquiry.

For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed with costs.