Delhi District Court
Labour Court No.1 : Room No. 52 : ... vs 2.1999 Vide Resignation Letter Ext. ... on 27 February, 2007
-:1:-
I.D. No. 202/00.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP KUMAR: PRESIDING OFFICER:
LABOUR COURT NO.1 : ROOM NO. 52 : KARKARDOOMA : DELHI.
BETWEEN
M/s. K. C. Electricals, B-7, Jhilmil Industrial Area, Delhi-95.
AND
Its workman Sh. Shiv Narayan, C/o Engineering Workers Lal
Jhanda Union, B-1/A, Nathu Colony (East), Shahdara, Delhi-
93.
AWARD :
Vide Notification No. F. 24 (537)/ 2000 - Lab. / 3205 -
209 dated 29.03.2000, Secretary Labour, Delhi
Administration, Delhi has referred this dispute to this court for
its adjudication u/s 10 (1)(c) and 12 (5) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. The terms of reference are as under :-
''Whether the services of Sh. Shiv
Narayan have been terminated
illegally and / or unjustifiably by the
management, and if so, to what relief
is he entitled and what directions are
necessary in this respect?''
Workman's case in brief is that he had been in the
employment of the management for the last three years on
the post of Helper and his last drawn wages were Rs. 1,937/-
Contd..
-:2:-
I.D. No. 202/00.
per month. He had been performing his duties with
sincerity, diligence, devotion and dedication. He had
uninterrupted, unblemished and meritorious service record
and he never gave any cause of complaint to the
management. However, the management did not issue
him appointment letter nor it was maintaining any service
record. It is further averred that management was
engaged in anti labour practices and they were not
providing legitimate facilities such as weekly offs, leave with
pay, medical / ESI facilities etc. as per Government
notifications nor it was paying even the minimum wages as
prescribed by the Government from time to time. He
became a member of the union in order that his interest
may be protected and his grievances could be taken up
with the management for effective redressal. This act of the
workman incurred displeasure of the management. The
management did not pay him earned wages for the month
of June, 1999. When he demanded the same it incurred
displeasure of the management. The management called
Contd..
-:3:-
I.D. No. 202/00.
him in their office, gave him beating and procured his
thumb impressions on blank papers and vouchers under
coercion and threat on 02.07.1999 and also removed him
from his services. He lodged a complaint to the S.H.O,
Police Station Dilshad Garden on the same date i.e.
02.07.1999.
2. It is further averred that termination of his services
by the management is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because he
was neither served any notice nor was paid one month's
wages in lieu of notice nor was paid compensation. He
was not even chargesheeted nor any domestic enquiry was
initiated by the management. He challenged termination
of his services by sending a demand notice dated
13.09.1999. The management, in their reply dated
17.09.1999 inter-alia that he had absented himself from duty
unauthorizedly from 24.02.1999; that he went to the factory
on 01.07.1999 and tendered his resignation from the services
Contd..
-:4:-
I.D. No. 202/00.
which was accepted on that very day and that his account
was settled on 02.07.1999. He sent a reply dated 27.09.1999
to the said notice to his demand notice wherein he
rebutted contents of the management reply. A complaint
was filed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on
04.07.1999. He also filed Statement of Claim before the
Conciliation Officer on 04.10.1999. The management
appeared before the Conciliation Officer on one or two
hearing and thereafter avoided to appear and hence the
conciliation proceedings did not yield positive result. It is
further averred that despite his best efforts he is
unemployed throughout from the date his services have
been terminated by the management. He has sought his
reinstatement with continuity of service and full back
wages.
3. The management has filed a Written Statement
denying that the workman was employed with them for a
period of three years as claimed in para 2 of the Statement
Contd..
-:5:-
I.D. No. 202/00.
of Claim. According to the management, the workman
was employed as a Beldar on 11.11.1998 on probation of six
months on monthly wages of Rs. 1,937/- which was not less
than the minimum wages applicable at that time. The
workman was not found suitable during the period he
worked with the management till 22.02.1999. He also
started remaining absent from 24.02.1999 ( 23rd February,
1999 being weekly off). On 01.07.1999 he came to the
factory and submitted his resignation letter and took his full
and final settlement of account on 02.07.1999. It is further
averred that an appointment letter was issued to the
workman at the time of his appointment and he was also
provided all legal facilities. It is further averred that as per
appointment letter, the workman was engaged w.e.f
11.11.1998 on probation of six months and from 24.02.1999
he remained absent from duty. Since he did not complete
even 240 days of continues service with the management,
there is no question of termination of his services illegally
and unjustifiably by the management. It is denied by the
Contd..
-:6:-
I.D. No. 202/00.
management that workman was called in the office on
02.07.1999 where he was given beating and his thumb
impressions on blank papers and vouchers were forcefully
and unlawfully procured. It is further averred that bare
perusal of his demand notice dated 13.09.1999 itself proves
the falseness of these allegations, which have been
fabricated after receipt of the reply dated 17.09.1999 sent
by the management to workman's demand notice dated
13.09.1999. It is denied that workman is entitled to
reinstatement or any relief whatsoever.
4. The claimant filed rejoinder denying averments
made in the Written Statement reiterating the facts stated
in the Statement of Claim.
5. On the above facts / pleadings, following issues
were settled on 23.09.2002 by my ld. Predecessor :-
1.Whether the claimant was appointed on 11.11.1999 and Contd..
-:7:-I.D. No. 202/00.
tendered his resignation on 01.07.1999 which was accepted and thereafter on 02.07.1990, he accepted his full and final payment of settlement of the account, if so, its effect?
2. As per terms of reference.
6. The workman entered into the witness box as W.W.1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence duly attested by an Oath Commissioner appointed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In the said affidavit, he reiterated on oath averments as spelled out in the Statement of Claim. Besides, he relied upon the documents Ext. W.W1/1 copy of the complaint lodged with SHO, Police Station Dilshad Garden, Ext. W.W1/2 complaint to the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Vishwakarma Nagar, Delhi on 04.07.1999, Ext. WW1/3 copy of the demand notice dated 13.09.1999, Ext. WW1/4 the postal receipt, Ext. WW1/5 reply by the management to his demand notice, Ext. WW1/6 reply sent by him to the said notice received from the management, Contd..
-:8:-I.D. No. 202/00.
Ext. WW1/7 postal receipt, Ext. WW1/8 copy of the claim filed before the Conciliation Officer and Ext. WW1/9 a report by Labour Inspector.
The workman also examined W.W2 Ram Narayan and W.W3 Sh. Zakir Hussain co-workers. They both tendered their respective affidavits in evidence stating that the workman Shiv Narayan was working with the management for a period of three years and he was removed from services after giving beating on 02.07.1999.
7. On the other hand, the management examined M.W1, Jitender Aggarwal one of its partners and M.W2, Manoj Rawat, Time Keeper of the management. They also tendered their respective affidavits in evidence reiterating averments by the management in its Written Statement. M.W1, Jitender Aggarwal also relied upon an application dated 11.11.1999 Ext. M.W2/1 stating that it was submitted by the workman Shiv Narayan for employment on the post of Beldar and on that post he was appointed as Beldar from Contd..
-:9:-I.D. No. 202/00.
11.11.1998 vide appointment letter. He further deposed that original of the said letter was handed over / given to the workman by M.W2 Mr. Manoj Rawat, a Time Keeper with the management on 11.11.1998 when he is present and the workman had appended his thumb impressions in token of having received the original copy of the appointment letter. M.W2, Manoj Rawat also reiterated all averments of the management in the Written Statement. He also stated that workman was issued appointment letter Ext. W.W1/M1. He also proved attendance and payment wages register for November, 1998 which are Ext. M.W2/2 and M.W2/3 respectively. He further deposed the workman had submitted his resignation letter Ext. W.W1/M2 which was accepted by Mr. Jitender Aggarwal, partner of the management. He also placed on record payment of wages register for the month of June, 1999 which is Ext. M.W2/4, photocopies of attendance register for February, 1999 to July, 1999 Ext. M.W2/5 to M.W2/10 and Ext. M.W2/11 a copy of bonus register for 1998 and 1999. He also placed Contd..
-:10:-I.D. No. 202/00.
on record M.W2/12 photocopy of relevant pages of Certified Standing Orders of the factory of the management
9. The workman has filed written arguments. His A.R has also addressed oral arguments. Oral arguments have also been addressed by the management A.R. I have gone through the written arguments and considered the same along with oral submissions made by both the parties. My findings on the issues are as under :-
ISSUE NO. 1.
10. This issue is in two parts. The first part is regarding the date on which the workman joined the services with the management. The second part is whether the workman had tendered his resignation on 01.07.1999 and was paid full Contd..
-:11:-I.D. No. 202/00.
and final dues on 02.07.1999.
Coming to the first part of this issue, onus is on the workman to prove that he had worked with the management for 240 days before 01.07.1999 / 02.07.1999 for the purpose to be entitled to the benefit of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Law in this regard is well settled that onus is on the claimant to prove existence of relationship of employer and employee between him and the management. Reference in this regard may be made to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in c the case of Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. 2004 LLR 351 wherein Their Lordships have clearly laid down that burden of proof for existence of relationship of employer and employee lies upon the the person who sets up a plea of its existence. In this case the claimant Shiv Narayan has claimed existence of relationship of employer and employee between him and the management. In the light of the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, onus is on the Contd..
-:12:-I.D. No. 202/00.
claimant Shiv Narayan to prove that relationship.
Reference in this regard may also be made to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported as R.M. Yellatti and Assistant Executive Engineer 2006 (108) FLR 213 and Surendranagar District Panchayat & Anr. Vs. Jethabhai Pitamberbhai 2005 IX AD (S.C) 50. In the light of the said proposition of law, onus is on the claimant Shiv Narayan to prove relationship of employer and employee between him and the management mentioned in the reference. Same is the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Range Forest Officer Vs. S.T. Hadimani 2002 LLR 339 and Surendranagar Distt. Panchayat Vs. Dhyabhai Amarsinh 2006 (108) 193. A.R for the management has argued that probation is a stipulation in the appointment letter Ext. W.W1/M1 and in view of the said stipulation, alleged removal of workman from service, does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Contd..
-:13:-I.D. No. 202/00.
12. As already mentioned above, the workman claims that he joined the service of the management as Helper three years before 02.07.1999. According to the management, he was employed by the management on 11.11.1998 on probation on six months. He started remaining absent from duty from 24.02.1999 and then came on 01.07.1999 to tender his resignation which was accepted on that very day and was paid his full and final dues on 02.07.1999.
13. W.W2, Ram Narayan has deposed that he was co- worker with the claimant and the management did not give him a letter of appointment. He further deposed that Shiv Narayan was taken in service of the management within three and half months of his joining the management in April, 1996. W.W3, Zakir Hussain also deposed that the workman Shiv Narayan had joined the service of the management in June / July, 1996. In his own testimony as W.W1, workman Shiv Narayan stated that he joined services Contd..
-:14:-I.D. No. 202/00.
of the management three years before his services were terminated on 02.07.1999. In his cross examination, he denied management's suggestion that he was appointed in the management as Beldar on 11.11.1998. However, in his cross examination W.W1, Shiv Narayan admitted that appointment letter Ext. W.W1/M1 bears his thumb impressions. However, he denied that its copy was given to him by the management. As stated in the Statement of Claim, the workman was not given a letter of appointment by the management. However, in his cross examination, the workman has admitted that the appointment letter Ext. W.W1/M1 bears his thumb impressions. He has tried to wriggle out of it stating that on 02.07.1999 the management obtained his 'signatures' on blank papers and vouchers under coercion and threat. According to the workman, he had lodged a police report at Police Station Dilshad Garden on that very date i.e. 02.07.1999. I am of the considered view that the said plea of the workman is not believable for the simple reason that the police report, carbon copy of Contd..
-:15:-I.D. No. 202/00.
which is Ext. W.W1/1 is dated 05.07.1999 ( although there seems to be an attempt on the part of the workman to remove the relevant portion at the top of the said report Ext. W.W1/1). However, he could not do anything with regard to the date mentioned under the seal of Police Station Dilshad Garden which is dated 05.07.1999. This falsifies workman's plea of obtaining his signatures on blank papers and vouchers by the management forcibly and under coercion and threat before removal from service on 02.07.1999. Workman's plea in the Statement of Claim is that he had lodged a police report at Police Station Dilshad Garden on that very day i.e. 02.07.1999 stands falsified by his own document Ext. W.W1/1. Three days delay in making police report is not explained by the workman which is fatal to his case. Besides, it is noticed that no official from the Police Station Dilshad Garden has been examined by the workman to prove that the said complaint, copy of which is Ext. W.W1/1, was ever received in the police station on 05.02.1999. Besides, Ext. W.W1/M1 is a printed document Contd..
-:16:-I.D. No. 202/00.
and not a blank ( blank paper) which does not corroborate workman's plea. In the Police report Ext. W.W1/1, there is no mention that his signatures were obtained by the management on printed letter of appointment nor so has been stated in the Statement of Claim. To wriggle out of letter of appointment Ext. WW1/M1, workman stated that he was not given a copy of that letter of appointment. However, this is against the printed contents of Ext. W.W1/M1which specifically spell out that he had received a copy of the said letter of appointment.
14. The aforesaid plea of the workman is also not believable as borne out from other evidence on record. The workman Shiv Narayan has relied upon Ext. W.W1/2 a complaint by him through union which is dated 04.07.1999. However, in his cross examination, he disowned it stating that it does not bear his thumb impressions at point A. Similarly, he relied upon demand notice dated 13.09.1999 Ext. W.W1/3, but in his cross examination he disowned it Contd..
-:17:-I.D. No. 202/00.
having thumb impressions at point A. He appears to have denied the said thumb impressions on the aforesaid documents deliberately because in both these documents there is no allegation that on 02.07.1999 the management had called him in their office, beaten him and obtained his signatures on blank papers and vouchers before terminating his services and that he had lodged a police report at Police Station Dilshad Garden on the same day i.e. 02.07.1999. Had he lodged Police report in that regard on 02.07.1999 itself, he would have so mentioned in his complaint Ext. W.W1/2 dated 04.07.1999 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the demand notice dated 13.09.1999 which is Ext. W.W1/3. The record reveals that the workman Shiv Narayan came up with the plea of obtaining his signatures by the management on 02.07.1999 forcibly and under threat, for the first time, on 27.09.1999 and his Police report in that regard on the same day (02.07.1999), in his rejoinder to the management reply dated 17.09.1999 which is Ext. WW1/5 to his demand notice dated 13.09.1999 Contd..
-:18:-I.D. No. 202/00.
Ext. WW1/3. This goes to show that the workman's plea of alleged obtaining the signatures by the management on blank papers / vouchers forcibly and under threat on 02.07.1999 and terminating his services thereafter is an after thought and hence it is not believable.
15. Besides, workman's plea in that regard is apparently falsified by the fact that the appointment letter Ext. W.W1/M1 as well as resignation letter Ext. W.W1/M2 bear thumb impressions and not his signatures. His case is not that his thumb impressions were obtained on blank papers and vouchers on 02.07.1999. In Ext. WW1/6, which is his own document, he alleges that the management had obtained his signatures forcibly on blank papers and vouchers. Besides, in his cross examination WW1 Shiv Narayan, even disowned thumb impressions at point A on Ext. WW1/6 which is rejoinder to management's reply to his demand notice. He even disowned thumb impressions at point A on the Statement of Claim Ext. WW1/8 filed before Contd..
-:19:-I.D. No. 202/00.
the Conciliation Officer on 04.10.1999. That goes to show that the workman has come up with the plea, for the first time, in the Statement of Claim filed in this Court. Therefore, his plea of obtaining his signatures / thumb impressions by the management on the documents including letter of appointment Ext. W.W1/M1 and other documents, including resignation letter Ext. W.W1/M2 cannot be believed. This goes to that the contents of letter of appointment Ext. W.W1/M1 are duly proved and the same have to be considered to adjudicate this controversy.
16. Bare perusal of letter of appointment Ext. W.W1/M1 reveals that his date of appointment in the services of the management is 11.11.1998 and not in 1996 as claimed in the Statement of Claim. His oral deposition as W.W1 and the oral deposition of his co-workers W.W2 and W.W3 cannot be looked into against written contents of Ext. W.W1/M1.
17. As per his own case, the workman worked with the Contd..
-:20:-I.D. No. 202/00.
management till 02.07.1999. That means he worked for the management only for 234 days i.e. less than 240 days. Initial burden of proof lies on the workman to prove that he has worked with the management continuously for 240 before 02.07.1999 but he has failed to discharge that onus. During the course of the arguments, A.R for the workman has relied upon the case law Uptron India Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bhan and Another (1998) 6 Supreme Court Cases 538 and D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SSC 259. With due respect to Their Lordships, the said case law does not help the workman in any manner whatsoever because he has failed to discharge the initial burden of proof which lies on him.
18. Coming to the second part of the issue whether the workman resigned from job on 02.07.1999 and had received full and final dues on 02.07.1999. The workman WW1, Shiv Narayan, in his cross examination has admitted his thumb impressions on Ext. W.W1/M2 which is a resignation letter dated 01.07.1999. When asked, in cross examination, when Contd..
-:21:-I.D. No. 202/00.
and where he appended that thumb impressions, he stated that he could not say anything in that regard. This falsifies his plea that his signatures were obtained on blank papers on 02.07.1999 and was removed from services. As already discussed above in detail, his plea that his signatures on documents were obtained on 02.07.1999 forcibly and under coercion and threat is not believable. Therefore, it is proved on record that the workman had voluntarily resigned on 01.02.1999 vide resignation letter Ext. W.W1/M2 and the same was accepted on that very day with directions to him to collect his legal dues on the following day i.e. 02.07.1999.
This goes to show that resignation by the workman on 01.07.1999 vide resignation letter Ext. WW1/M2 is voluntary. As held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Laffans India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pancham Singh Rawat & Anr. 2003 LLR 147 resignation of a workman will be considered voluntarily when he did not raise any alarm or protest for four months or its acceptance. As stated above, the workman came up with the plea of obtaining his signatures / thumb impressions Contd..
-:22:-I.D. No. 202/00.
on blank papers and vouchers, for the first time, on 27.09.1999 in his rejoinder to the management reply dated 17.09.1999. This goes to show that the workman did not raise any alarm or protest for a period from 02.07.1999 to 27.09.1999 and came up with the aforesaid plea only thereafter. The proposition of law laid down by the the Hon'ble High Court in Laffans India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pancham Singh Rawat & Anr. (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Besides, the management has proved that on 02.07.1999 it had paid a sum of Rs. 129.15 paise in payment of his full and final dues vide Ext. W.W1/M3. The workman has failed to prove that his resignation was obtained under threat and coercion. There is nothing on record that the workman had returned the said amount received by him on 02.07.1999 vide Ext. W.W1/M3. He was paid those dues after his resignation letter Ext. W.W1/M2 was accepted on 01.07.1999. In the light of this, the plea of the employee that resignation was obtained under threat and coercion is not tenable. On this, I am fortified by decision of Contd..
-:23:-I.D. No. 202/00.
the Hon'ble Apex Court reported as Nand Keshwar Prasad Vs. M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. and others AIR 1999 Supreme Court 558 and Gyanendra Sahay Vs. M/s. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. 2006 LLR 594.
Ext. W.W1/M3 is the payment register regarding payment by the management to the workman on 02.07.1999. The workman denied to have been paid the said dues. However, in his cross examination, workman Shiv Narayan admitted that it bears his thumb impressions at point A and B. As discussed earlier in detail, his plea of obtaining his signatures on blank documents / vouchers on 02.07.1999 by the management is not believable. Therefore, full and final payment of dues by the management to the workman on 02.07.1999 is proved.
A.R for the workman has argued that the documents Ext. W.W1/M3 was not sent to the Assistant Labour Commissioner / Deputy Labour Commissioner as admitted by M.W1 Jitender Aggarwal in his cross examination. It is argued by the A.R that it was not sent Contd..
-:24:-I.D. No. 202/00.
because it is not a genuine document. I do not find any merits in this contention in the light of the facts already discussed above. Besides, it is not the legal requirement to send copy of such like document to the aforesaid authorities in the office of Labour Commissioner.
19. The evidence that has come on record goes to prove that the workman Shiv Narayan has failed to discharge initial burden which lies on him to prove that he had worked with the management continuously for 240 days before 01/02.07.1999. It also stands proved on record that the workman had resigned from his job on 01.07.1999 vide resignation letter Ext. W.W1/M2 which was accepted by M.W1 Jitender Aggarwal on that very day with directions to collect his legal dues on 02.07.1999. It also stands proved on record that the workman had been paid his legal dues in full and final on 02.07.1999 vide Ext. W.W1/M3. The issue is accordingly decided against the workman and in favour of the management.
Contd..
-:25:-I.D. No. 202/00.
ISSUE No. 2.
20. A.R for the workman argued that the workman has proved to have worked with the management from 1996 continuously and that his services were terminated without notice, show cause, charge sheet, domestic enquiry as contemplated under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, he is entitled to reinstatement with other benefits. I do not find any merits in this contention. As discussed in findings on issue No. 1 above, the workman has failed to prove to have worked continuously for 240 days prior to 01/02.07.1999 and, therefore, he cannot be said to be entitled to the protection available under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
21. A.R for the management has argued that probation is a stipulation in the appointment letter Ext.
Contd..
-:26:-I.D. No. 202/00.
W.W1/M1 and, therefore, his alleged removal from services during the probation period, is not retrenchment as denied under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that regard he has relied upon the case law reported as Escorts Limited Vs. Presiding Officer and Anr. 1997 LLR 699, Hawa Singh Vs. P.O. Labour Court 2006 LLR 949, K.V. Krishnamani Vs. Lalit Kala Academy 1997 LLR 16 and Krishnadevaraya Education Trust Vs. L.A. Balakrishna 2001 LLR 260. In Escorts Limited Vs. Presiding Officer and Anr. (supra), the services of the workmen were terminated on 13.02.1987 as per the terms of the contract of employment contained in appointment letter dated 09.01.1987 which allows the management to terminate the services of the workman at any stage without assigning any reason. It was held by Their Lordships that since the services of the workman were terminated as per the terms of contract, it does not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the case law reported as M. Venugopal Vs. Divisional Manager, LIC and another 1994 Contd..
-:27:-I.D. No. 202/00.
(2) SCC 323 relied upon by Their Lordships in Escorts Limited Vs. Presiding Officer and Anr. (supra), the appellant had been appointed on probation for a period of one year from 23.05.1984 to May, 22, 1985 and the said period of probation was extended for a further period of one year from May 23, 1985 to May 22, 1986. Before the expiry of the said period of probation, his services were terminated on 9, May 1986. It was held by Their Lordships that since termination was in accordance with the terms of contract though before the expire of the period of probation it fall within the ambit of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and did not constitute retrenchment.
Our own Hon'ble High Court in Hawa Singh Vs. P.O. Labour Court (supra) has held that a probationer has no lien on the job and his services can be terminated by an employer without holding of an enquiry and, as such, the Labour Court has rightly held that when a workman is not confirmed, his probationary services can be terminated hence such no relief can be granted.
Contd..
-:28:-I.D. No. 202/00.
Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishnadevarya Education Trust Vs. L. A. Balakrishna (supra) held that suitability of the probationer is to be seen by the employer; that if services are not satisfactory, the employer can terminate the services as a reason thereof.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.V. Krishnamani Vs. Lalit Kala Academy has laid down that very object of the probation is to test suitability and if appointing authority finds that the candidate is not suitable, it certainly has the power to terminate services of the employee.
22. The proposition of law laid down by our own Hon'ble High Court and by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case law is squarely applicable to the facts of this case. As already mentioned above, there are no grounds to disbelieve the letter of appointment Ext. W.W1/M1. Bare perusal of Ext. W.W1/M1 reveals that he had joined the services of the management w.e.f. 11.11.1998 on six months probation which could be extended upto 11 months. There Contd..
-:29:-I.D. No. 202/00.
is nothing on record by the workman to show that he had been confirmed after expiry of six months probation. As held by our own Hon'ble High Court in B. S. Chopra Vs. The Management of Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited and Anr. 126 (2006) DLT 518 the workman cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expired. Therefore, even if the workman is presumed to have worked till 01.07.1999, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed in the post of Beldar by the management. Therefore, on 01/02.07.1999 the workman is deemed to be on probation and the management was within its rights to terminate his services during the extended period of probation without assigning any reason in terms of conditions mentioned in the letter of appointment Ext. W.W1/M1.
23. According to the management, the workman had absented from duty from 24.02.1999 and he did not report for duty thereafter upto 01.07.1999 when he resigned vide Contd..
-:30:-I.D. No. 202/00.
resignation letter Ext. W.W1/M2. M.W2, Mr. Manoj Rawat has proved in evidence muster roll for the months from February, 1999 to July, 1999. Perusal of muster roll of February, 1999 reveals that workman Shiv Narayan had been on duty from 01.02.1999 to 22.02.1999 and 23rd February, 1999 was weekly off and he was marked absent from 24.02.1999 for the remaining days in the said month. His name also figures in the muster roll for the period from March, 1999 to July, 1999 but he has been marked absent throughout that period. The witness has been cross examined at length by the workman but nothing could be elicited to render those documents Ext. M.W2/5 to M.W2/10 unworthy of credence. In fact, the workman has not challenged those documents in the cross examination of M.W2 Mr. Manoj Rawat and, therefore, there are no grounds to disbelieve the same. The muster roll Ext. M.W2/5 to M.W2/10 goes to prove that the workman Shiv Narayan had absented from duty from 24.02.1999 and did not report for duty thereafter in February, 1999 to July, 1999. That means workman Shiv Narayan Contd..
-:31:-I.D. No. 202/00.
worked with the management only for the period from 11.11.1998 to 23.02.1999 that is hardly for two and half months and he left the job of his own during the initial period of six months of probation. Therefore, alleged termination of his services by the management, which the workman has otherwise failed to prove, does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. As a result the workman is not entitled to any relief or directions from this Court.
The reference is answered accordingly. Dated : 27.02.2007. (GURDEEP KUMAR) PRESIDING OFFICER:
LABOUR COURT NO.I. Typed 1+6 copies K.K.RDOOMA:DELHI.
Contd..