Delhi District Court
Sh. Shakam Singh vs (1) The on 5 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF GORAKH NATH PANDEY,
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE/
PRESIDING OFFICER : LABOUR COURT - IV,
ROUSE AVENUE COURTS : NEW DELHI.
LIR No.1337/2016
CNR No.DLCT130008242014
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Shakam Singh,
S/o Sh. Sabal Singh,
R/o Gali No.9, Raj Nagar - 2,
Palam, New Delhi - 110045.
....WORKMAN/CLAIMANT
VERSUS
(1) The Management of
M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Haj Terminal Cargo, Terminal II, Gateway,
Indira Gandhi International Airport,
New Delhi.
(2) DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
8th Floor, HDIL Towers,
A. K. Marg, Bandra (East),
Mumbai.
....MANAGEMENT
Date of institution of the case : 14.11.2014
Date of passing the Award : 05.09.2022
Decision : Dismissed.
AWAR D
1. Vide this Award, I shall decide the Industrial Dispute
which was referred by Deputy Labour Commissioner, South
West District on a complaint filed by the aforesaid
claimant/workman against the Management, vide reference no.
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.1/18
F.24(307)/14/SWD/Lab./6223-6225 dated 18.07.2014, u/s 10(1)
(c) and 12 (5) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, wherein the
following reference was to be answered :-
"Whether the services of Sh. Shakam Singh, S/o Sh. Sabal Singh
have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management; and if so, to what relief is he entitled?"
2. Notice of the reference was issued to the workman.
Pursuant thereto, the workman appeared and filed his statement
of claim averring that he was working with the managements
from the year 2010 and his last drawn salary was Rs.20,852/- pm.
It is further contended that the workman was initially
appointed/recruited through M/s Adecco Flexione Workplace Pvt.
Ltd. on 14.07.2010 at a monthly salary of Rs.8500/- p.m. and was
posted at IGI Airport, New Delhi. On 24.03.2014, the official of
management no.1 obtained the resignation of workman and
issued fresh appointment letter to him on the same moment. The
workman further contended that though he was working from
March, 2011 but he was shown as a probationer for six months in
the fresh appointment letter dated 24.03.2013; in the month of
November, 2013 and again in December, 2013, the management
issued the letter of extension and same were protested by the
workman and he was conveyed by the management that these
extensions are mere formalities and he may continue to work
with the same sincerity as he was working.
It is further stated in the statement of claim that on
14.01.2014, the services of the workman was terminated on the
ground that he had not improved his performance. Aggrieved
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.2/18
therefrom, the workman issued legal demand notice dated
24.03.2014 to the managements demanding for reinstatement and
back wages which was not replied nor the workman was
reinstated. The workman also filed his claim petition before the
Conciliation Officer but of no avail and hence the present
reference.
The workman claims to be unemployed from the
date of his illegal termination. As claimed, the termination of
service of the workman is illegal and unjustified as the
management violated the provisions of Section 25F of I.D. Act. It
is prayed that an award be passed in favour of workman and
against management directing the management to reinstate him
with consequential benefits including full back wages and
continuity in service.
3. Notice of the statement of claim was issued to the
management and management had filed the written statement to
the statement of claim of workman contended that the applicant
was engaged on probation in terms of his conditions of
employment; the services of the applicant were not terminated
but his services came to an end by the efflux of time; the Govt.
has made a reference of termination which is bad in law as it is
neither a case of termination nor is a case of retrenchment. The
management denied the averments of the statement of claim and
prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.3/18
4. Vide order dated 19.09.2015, the following issues
were framed in view of pleadings of the parties :-
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the management illegally or unjustifiably
terminated services of the claimant as alleged in the claim?OPW
(2) Whether the services of the claimant came to an end
by the efflux of time? OPM
(3) If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the claimant to
which relief the claimant is entitled?OPW
The case was, thereafter, fixed for evidence of
workman.
5. In order to discharge the onus and prove the issue,
the workman had appeared as witness and filed in evidence, his
examination in chief by way of affidavit Ex. WW1/A wherein he
had reiterated the contents of his statement of claim on solemn
affirmation. Besides this, he had also placed on record the
following documents :-
(i) Ex.WW1/1: Letter of employment dated 14.07.2010;
(ii) Ex.WW1/2: Letter of probation dated 15.02.02014;
(iii) Ex.WW1/3: Letter of appointment dated 24.03.2013;
(iv) Ex.WW1/4: Legal demand notice dated 24.03.2014;
(v) Ex.WW1/5 & Ex.WW1/6: Postal receipts of demand
notice.
Thereafter, the workman's evidence was closed.
6. In rebuttal, management had examined Sh. Gaurav
Choudhary as MW1 who filed his affidavit by way of evidence
as Ex.MW1/A reiterating the factual contents of the written
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.4/18
statement of management on solemn affirmation. Besides this, he
had also placed on record the following documents :-
(i) Ex.MW1/1: Application of the workman for
employment;
(ii) Ex.MW1/2: Job and responsibilities assigned to the
workman;
(iii) Ex.MW1/3: Letter of appointment dated 24.03.2013;
(iv) Ex.MW1/4: Letter dated 23.12.2013 written to the
workman regarding extension of probation;
(v) Ex.MW1/5: Letter written to the workman regarding
extension of probation;
(vi) Ex.MW1/6: Termination letter dated 15.02.02014
issued to the workman;
7. Management also summoned the following
witnesses:
MW2 Sh. Hari Singh Nigam, UDC, ESI Branch
Office Karampura, Delhi brought the summoned record and
proved the same vide Ex.MW1/1: Letter of authority issued in his
favour to depose in the court; Ex.MW2/2: the ESI records qua
registration of workman and Ex.MW2/3: contribution details of
ESI for the period from October, 2012 to May, 2013.
MW3 Sh. Sharad Pandey, Branch Manager with
M/s. Adeco India Pvt.Ltd. brought the summoned record and
proved the same vide Ex.MW3/1 to Ex.MW3/11: Employment
record of the claim for the period June, 2010 till March, 2013
when he worked with M/s. Adeco i.e. attendance register, wage
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.5/18
register, pay slips, component sheet, standard terms and
conditions, resignation, relieving letter, educational documents
submitted at the time of employment, PF statement and PF
withdrawal details.
MW4 Sh. Akshaya Gangawar, Social Securitiy
Assistant from EPFO brought the summoned record i.e. Ledger
Card of workman showing the PF contribution by his employer
Delhivery having company code DLCPM0043366. The witness
deposed that the workman joined Delhivery on 20.10.2014 and is
working with same entity till date. The statement brought by the
witness is Ex.MW4/A (Colly).
MW5 Sh. Atul Yadav, UDC, ESIC Branch Office,
Maya Puri, New Delhi brought the summoned record i.e. e-
identity card and contribution detail as well as ledger sheet of
workman showing the cash benefits availed by the workman
from ESIC. He further deposed that as per the record brought by
him, the ESIC contribution for the workman was made for the
month of October, 2016 only from M/s. S.S.N. Logistics Pvt.
Ltd., RSB-100-2A, Basement, Saraswati Complex, C-1,
Janakpuri, New Delhi. Further the registration of the workman
for contribution towards ESIC was made on 22.11.2016 and
before that date, there is no contribution towards ESIC for the
workman by any of the employer. The ESIC contribution has
been made for the workman from November, 2016 to March,
2017 has been made by employer having code
no.200121918000099999. He proved the above summoned
record as Ex.MW5/A.
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.6/18
MW5 also produced the record of ESIC of the
workman and as per the record, contribution towards ESIC has
been made by the employer Delhivery Pvt. Ltd. from the period
November 2016 till September, 2021. He further deposed that the
records brought by him shows that the wages have been paid to
the workman by Delhivery till June, 2018 and thereafter, the
wages of the employee has been shown zero zero. After June,
2018, the status of the workman has been shown 'no work'. The
Delhivery filing the return of the workman as its employee till
September, 2021. He proved the record as Ex.MW5/B.
MW6 Sh. Shashi Sharma, Assistant Manager,
Delivery Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.5, Sector-44, Gurgaon, Haryana also
brought the summoned record regarding employment of the
workman. He deposed that as per the record brought by him,
workman joined Delhivery Pvt. Ltd on 20.10.2014 as Operation
Executive and he is working continuously till date. He proved the
record as Ex.MW6/1.
8. I have heard the arguments addressed by the AR for
the parties and gone through the relevant materials lying on the
record. The AR for the management also relied upon the
following judgments in support of his contentions:
(i) Hem Singh v. The Director of Education & Ors.,
reported as MANU/DE/2920/2013;
(ii) Workmen of Nilgiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd., v.
State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., reported as MANU/SC/0100/2004;
(iii) M. Venugopal v. The Divisional Manager, Life
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.7/18
Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh
& Ors.; reported as MANU/SC/0310/1994;
(iv) Pinaki Ghosh v. International Airport Authority of
India & Ors., reported as 2007 LLR 1238;
(v) Modern School v. Govt. of NCT Delhi & Ors., 2003
LLR 890.
9. My issue-wise findings are as under:-
Issues No.1 to 3:
(1) Whether the management illegally or unjustifiably
terminated services of the claimant as alleged in the claim?OPW
(2) Whether the services of the claimant came to an end
by the efflux of time? OPM
(3) If issue no.1 is decided in favour of the claimant to
which relief the claimant is entitled?OPW
The onus to prove the Issue no.1 & 3 was on the
workman whereas the Issue no.2 was to be proved by the
management. All these issued are examined and decided together
being interrelated.
The brief and relevant facts for filing of this case
along-with the defence of the management have been mentioned
at the outset. The workman claimed that he was appointed
through M/s. Adecco Flexion Workforce Pvt. Ltd. as an
Operation Agent on 14.07.2010 and was posted with the
management no.1 vide appointment letter Ex.WW1/1; the
management no.1 terminated the services of the workman on
15.02.014 vide Ex.WW1/2. It is noted that the workman has not
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.8/18
impleded M/s. Adecco Flexion Workforce Pvt. Ltd. by whom he
was appointed due to the reasons best known to him. The
document Ex.WW1/1 i.e. appointment letter was issued to the
workman admittedly by M/s. Adecco Flexion Workforce Pvt.
Ltd. I have gone through the document Ex.WW1/1 which is
sufficient to show that he was appointed as Operation Agent for a
fix period of employment (Contract) and was deputed with the
management. The document Ex.WW1/1 itself contradicts the
claim of the workman that he was appointed by the management
on 14.07.2010 and the employment of the workman with the
management is not proved w.e.f. 14.07.2010 as claimed in the
claim petition. The workman was cross-examined at length and
deposed as under:
"Ex.WW1/1 i.e. the letter of appointment was issued to me
by M/s. Adecco Flexione Workforce Pvt. Ltd.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
M/s. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solution Pvt. Ltd. had
employed me but deployed me with the management herein.
But my wages used to be paid by the management herein. It
is wrong to suggest that management never paid me wages in
the course of my employment with M/s. Adecco Flexione
Workforce Solution Pvt. Ltd. or that the later company used
to pay me wages.
Ex.WW1/3 i.e. letter of appointment was issued to me by the
management herein. No letter of appointment was ever issued
to me by the management prior thereto".
The testimony of the workman including Ex.
WW1/3 relied by the workman itself is sufficient to prove that
the workman was appointed as Operation Agent by the
management herein only on 24.03.2013 and the terms and
conditions of his employment is duly mentioned in Ex.WW1/3
wherein the provisions of probation is reproduced as under:
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.9/18
"Probation: You will be on probation for a period of six
months with effect from the date of appointment. During
your probation period your conduct, behavior, attitude, job
knowledge, communication skills, planning, organizing
skills, team work, decision making skills etc. will be assessed
on monthly basis. You will be continued to be on probation
unless confirmed in writing."
The terms and conditions of Ex.WW1/3 have been
prepared and accepted by the workman pursuant to the
discussions between the parties. As the document Ex.WW1/3
categorically proves that the workman was appointed by the
management herein only on 24.03.2013, the claim of the
workman in the employment of the management herein w.e.f.
14.07.10 is nothing but false contention. The workman was
further cross-examined and deposed as under:
"Ex.MW1/1 bears my signatures at point A. It was got signed
from me by the manager of the management when it was
blanked. It is correct that at the top of this document, name
Shakam Singh is in my handwriting. Similarly, Ex.MW1/3
bears my signatures at point A and my name at the bottom
and that in my handwriting".
The document Ex.MW1/1 is the application made by
the workman herein dated 24.03.2013 for his employment with
the management whereas Ex.MW1/3 is the appointment letter
executed by the workman. The workman also admitted his
signatures on Ex.MW1/4 whereby his probation was extended.
The workman has relied mainly on the document Ex.WW1/3 to
prove that he worked with the management w.e.f. 14.07.2010 to
23.03.13 i.e. his appointment letter by M/s. Adecco Flexion
Workforce Pvt. Ltd. It is noted that the said document is not
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.10/18
sufficient to prove that the workman was appointed by the
management herein as claimed in the claim petition and the claim
of the workman is totally false. It is duly proved that he was
appointed by the management only on 24.03.2013. As regards the
contentions of the workman regarding his illegal termination by
the management, he further deposed during cross-examination as
under:
"I was never issued any appreciation letter by the respondent
management during the course of my employment. I was never issued any increment letter by respondent-management. (Vol. It used to be added in my salary account). I cannot recollect as to when this increment was added to my salary. It is correct that I have not filed documents with respect to ESI, PF, Pay slips etc. pertaining to my employment with M/s Adecco Flexione Workforce Pvt. Ltd. (Vol. This company was taken over by the management). I do not have any document to prove that M/s Adecco Flexione Workforce Pvt. Ltd. was taken by respondent company. I was not issued any duty chart or work related instruction during the period I was employed with the M/s Adecco Flexione Workforce Pvt. Ltd. by the respondent management. It is wrong to suggest that during the period I remained in employment with M/s Adecco Flexione Workforce Pvt. Ltd. My salary was paid by the said management. (Vol. It was paid by respondent-management). My salary used to be paid in my salary bank account during the period, I remained with M/s Adecco Flexione Workforce Pvt. Ltd. It is wrong to suggest that my salary during my employment with M/s Adecco Flexione Workforce Pvt. Ltd. was paid by the said management. I had no objection in the appointment order dated 24.03.2013 Ex. WW1/3 so issued to me. I had objection to the extension of probation period letter dated 23.12.2013 and 24.01.2014 respectively. I had not submitted any objection to the management in reference to these communications.
No resignation letter was taken by the management of DHL from me. It is correct that it is mentioned in Ex. WW1/3 that the age of retirement is fixed as 58 years. I do not remember as to whether any confirmation letter was issued to me or not. (Vol. There is appointment letter Ex. WW1/3 which was issued to me). I do not admit or denied the suggestion that no confirmation letter was issued by the LIR No.1337/2016 Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.11/18management to me.
I do not understand the meaning of word Assessment. It is wrong to suggest that I was paid off as my work was not found upto the expectation of the management. It is wrong to suggest that I was independently employed with M/s Adecco Flexione Workforce Pvt. Ltd. It is further wrong to suggest that during phase of my employment with M/s Adecco Flexione Workforce Pvt. Ltd., my work was controlled and supervised by the said management. It is further wrong to suggest that I had not worked in the employment of respondent management from 14.07.2010 to 23.03.2013. It is correct that contribution of my PF/ESI was deducted and deposited by my employer DHL. It is correct that PF/ESI was deposited by the employer only from the date when they hired me in their employment. I do not remember the date as to when the management of DHL started to deduct and contribute my PF/ESI. I cannot remember that the management of DHL started deducting my PF/ESI from March, 2013 onwards. "
Though the workman claimed that he continued to work with the management even after the probationary period but his contention is false as the management has proved the letters whereby his probation period was extended again and again till his termination on 15.02.14. MW1 filed his affidavit Ex.MW1/A and categorically deposed that the workman joined the management on 24.03.13 on probation; his probation was extended vide Ex.MW1/4 and Ex.MW1/5; as his work was not satisfactory his service was terminated vide Ex.MW1/6. MW1 has proved the relevant documents in support of the defence and the testimony of the MW1 in one way or the other remained unimpeached/uncontroverted. The workman failed to prove that his probation was ever confirmed by the management. MW1 during his cross-examination deposed as under:
"It is correct that the workman was issued the appointment letter already exhibited as Ex.MW1/3. Workman had worked with the management from 24.03.013 to January, 2014. Again LIR No.1337/2016 Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.Page No.12/18
said, he had worked with the management till February, 2014. In the mean time, his services were extended thrice as he was not working upto management's expectations. No termination notice was issued to workman before dispensing his services".
The testimony of MW1 alongwith documents relied and proved is sufficient to prove that the workman joined the management only on 24.03.2013; he was only on probation when his service was terminated. The claim of the workman regarding his working with management since 2010 is also controverted in view of testimony of MW2, MW3 i.e. witness from M/s. Adecco Flexion Workforce Pvt. Ltd. and MW4. The testimony of MW5 and MW6 also falsifies the claim of the workman that he is unemployed in view of his ESIC contribution. In view of the discussions, it is duly proved that the claim of the workman is false and he has stated a false case. It is reiterated that the employee-employer relationship is not denied and the appointment letter Ex.MW1/3 is applicable to be workman. Even otherwise, the workman has not filed any document on record to show that he worked with the management since 2010 as claimed in the petition. Admittedly, the workman was appointed on probation in view of Ex.MW1/3 and his probation was extended time and again pursuant to the documents Ex.MW1/4 to Ex.MW1/6. As the workman was under probation, the management was not required to issue notice/charge sheet or hold enquiry before discharging his services even otherwise. From the cross-examination of the workman itself, it is apparent that he has concealed the relevant/material facts regarding his joining and discharge. As mentioned above, the workman has not LIR No.1337/2016 Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.13/18placed on record any document to show that he was working with the management since the year 2010. It is proved that he was appointed by management vide Ex.MW1/3 on probation for a period of six months from the date of his joining and the probation was extended again and again. The services of the workman can be terminated during the period of probation in the same manner as that of a probationer. As the management did not find the services of the workman during this period satisfactory, the management even otherwise was not bound to keep the workman employed. The ratio of the judgments relied by the workman titled Hem Singh v. Director of Education and Ors., reported Manu/DE/2920/2013 and M. Venugopal Vs. The Divisional Manager, LIC reported as MANU/SC/0310/1994 is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. I have gone through the documents relied by the workman in support of his claim and documents itself prove that the management had followed the terms and conditions of appointment letter Ex.MW1/3. It is not denied that the workman was under probation when he was discharged by management. The management was not under obligation to make any enquiry or issue notice/charge sheet to the workman as the workman was under probation. It is settled that where an employer has failed to make an enquiry before dismissal or discharge of a workman, it is open for him to justify the action before the labour court by leading evidence before it. As held in 'Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd Vs Motipur Sugar Factory' reported in LIR No.1337/2016 Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.14/18AIR 1965 SC 1803:
"11. It is now well settled by a number of decisions of this Court that where an employer has failed to make an enquiry before dismissing or discharging a workman it is open to him to justify the action before the tribunal by leading all relevant evidence before it. In such a case the employer would not have the benefit which he had in cases where domestic enquiries have been held. The entire matter would be open before the tribunal which will have jurisdiction not only to go into the limited questions open to a tribunal where domestic enquiry has been property held (see Indian Iron & Steel Co. v. Workmen) but also to satisfy itself on the facts adduced before it by the employer whether the dismissal or discharge was justified. We may in this connection refer to Sana Musa Sugar Works (P) Limited v. Shobrati Khan, Phulbari Tea Estate v. Workmen, and Punjab National Bank Limited v. Workmen. These three cases were further considered by this Court in Bharat Sugar Mills Limited v. Jai Singh, and reference was also made to the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal in Ram Swarath Sinha v. Belsund Sugar Co. It was pointed out that "the important effect of omission to hold an enquiry was merely this: that the tribunal would not have to consider only whether there was a prima facie case but would decide for itself on the evidence adduced whether the charges have really been made out". It is true that three of these cases, except Phulbari Tea Estate case, were on applications under Section 23 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But in principle we see no difference whether the matter comes before the tribunal for approval under Section 33 or on a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In either case if the enquiry is defective or if no enquiry has been held as required by Standing Orders, the entire case would be open before the tribunal and the employer would have to justify on facts as well that its order of dismissal or discharge was proper. Phulbari Tea Estate case was on a reference under Section 10, and the same principle was applied there also, the only difference being that in that case there was an inquiry though it was defective. A defective enquiry in our opinion stands on the same footing as no enquiry and in either case the tribunal would have jurisdiction to go into the facts and the employer would have to satisfy the tribunal that on facts the order of dismissal or discharge was proper."
In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is proved that LIR No.1337/2016 Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Page No.15/18the workman was discharged by the management while he was under probation. The services of the workman was dispensed while relying the appointment letter Ex.MW1/3. I have perused the judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 3841/2000 titled DTC v. R. K. Tiwari & Anr. Hon'ble Court in para 8 framed a legal issue as under:-
"Whether an employer is required to conduct any enquiry against such an employee when some kind of misconduct on the part of the probationer is brought to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority during the period of probation and also whether the termination simpliciter of a probationer amounts to retrenchment or not."
Answer to the aforesaid legal aspect was answered by Hon'ble High Court in the judgment in para no.9 and 10 after relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Ors. v. Dr. Md. S. Iskender Ali, (1980) 3 SCC 428 as well as Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U. P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Anr., JT 1998 (8) SC 585 and State of U.P. & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar, (2005) 13 SCC 652. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 6562/2010 titled Uttar Pradesh Samaj (Society) and Anr. v. Ramesh Kumar Bawalia referring to various judgments held in para 9 -
"9. The law with respect to the termination of service of a probationer is well-settled that termination of a probationer during the period of probation does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In Deccan Charters (supra) and Nitya Nand (supra), this Court summarized the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Venugopal (supra), Escorts Limited (supra), Kalyani Sharp (supra) and the Division Bench of this Court in Mahinder Singh Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd, 2016 SCC Online Del 5008.LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.Page No.16/18
The ratio of the judgments is squarely applicable in this case.
11. The management was not under obligation to conduct any enquiry as the workman was a probationer at that time. The termination of the workman in the facts and circumstances of this case is not punitive or stigmatic and it was a case of termination simpliciter. Applying the aforesaid principles in the present case, this court is of the view that discharge of the workman who was not found suitable during the probation period does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the deliberations, the discharge of the workman by the management can not be termed as illegal and as the workman was under probation and his services were not satisfactory, he was rightly discharged. In view of the above discussions, the Issues no.1 & 3 are decided against the workman whereas the Issue No.2 is decided in favour of the management and against the workman.
Consequent to the decision of Issue Nos.1 to 3, it is held that the workman/claimant is not entitled to any relief. Statement of claim is, therefore, dismissed.
12. Award is passed and reference stands answered accordingly.
13. Digitally signed copy of the award be sent to the Labour Commissioner for publication.LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.Page No.17/18
14. The award be also uploaded to server. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.Digitally signed by
GORAKH GORAKH NATH
NATH PANDEY
Date: 2022.09.13
PANDEY 14:57:37 +0530
Announced in the open (Gorakh Nath Pandey)
Court on 05.09.2022 Addl. District & Sessions Judge
Presiding Officer Labour Court- IV
Rouse Avenue District Courts.
LIR No.1337/2016
Sh. Sakham Singh Vs. M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.Page No.18/18