Delhi District Court
Ramdhan vs Instt.Of Marktg. Managment on 31 May, 2024
IN THE COURT OF
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT-01:
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT: NEW DELHI
Presided Over by: Ms. Pooja Aggarwal, DHJS
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014)
CNR No.DLCT13-000397-2008
In the matter of :-
Sh. Ramdhan
S/o Shri Rajender Bahadur
R/o H. No. 14/437, Ambedkar Nagar,
Sector -5, New Delhi.
Through :
Sh. R. K. Mishra, Audhyogik Mazdoor Union (Regd.)
Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh,
668, Kabul Nagar, G.T. Road,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
Immediate family member of the workman
Smt. Rekha (Wife of the workman)
Mobile No. 9315537752
Authorized Representative for the claimant/workman:
Name: Sh. Dwarka Sawale
Mobile No. 9711158224
.....Claimant/Workman
VERSUS
M/s Institute of Marketing and Management
Marketing Tower,
B-11, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016.
Authorized Representative for the management :
Name: Ms. Manjula Upadhyay
Mobile no.: 9910109089
E-mail ID of management: [email protected]
.....Management
Digitally
signed by
POOJA
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) POOJA AGGARWAL
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
Page No. 1 of 22
17:18:18
+0530
Date of Institution : 30.07.2008
Date of Final Arguments : 30.01.2024 and
06.05.2024
Date of Award : 31.05.2024
AWARD
1. The present direct claim has been filed by the claimant/
workman against the management seeking reinstatement
with full back wages, 10% annual wage increase, arrears of
wages and other consequential benefits.
Facts as per the statement of claim
2. Briefly stated, it has been asserted that the claimant /
workman was working as a Computer Operator (Placement
Division) with the management since 14.02.2007 till
06.05.2008 to the satisfaction of the management without
any complaints or charge sheet against him with his last
drawn salary being ₹8,300/- per month.
3. It has been further asserted that on 14.02.2007, the
claimant /workman was appointed on permanent service as
a Computer Operator but no appointment letter was given
which was given on 15.03.2007 after repeated oral
requests. It has also been asserted that the claimant/
workman was not allowed to read the appointment letter
when it was given and he was pressurized to sign the same,
which he did, and later, when he read the letter, he came to
know that a condition as to probation period of six months
Digitally
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) signed by
POOJA
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 2 of 22
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:18:24
+0530
was mentioned in his appointment letter.
4. It has been further asserted that when he talked to the
management about the same, they informed him that
legally they could appoint a person only on probation and
that his services would be confirmed automatically after
six months when they would give him a permanent service
letter.
5. It has been further asserted that after the expiry of period
of six months of probation, the claimant / workman made a
request to the management for providing the permanent
service letter but no such letter was given nor the probation
period was extended. It has been further asserted that due
to the repeated demands of the claimant/ workman
regarding the permanent service letter and legal facilities,
the management got annoyed and issued a letter dated
03.04.2008 to him communicating extension of probation
period w.e.f. 01.02.2008.
6. It has also been asserted that when the claimant/workman
expressed his objection to the same, the management Mr.
C.M. Puri asked him to leave the job if the same was not
acceptable to him, due to which the claimant/workman had
to bow down before the management due to compulsion of
employment.
7. It has also been asserted that the wages of the claimant/
workman were deducted if he was absent or on leave but
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014)
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management Digitally Page No. 3 of 22
signed by
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:18:30
+0530
still no complaint was made as the management would
threaten to remove him from service.
8. It has also been asserted that on 04.03.2008, a settlement
was arrived at between the workmen and the management
by virtue of which the salary was increased along with
allowances. It has been further asserted that despite
repeated oral demands, the management did not provide
the claimant/workman, the benefits under the Labour Laws
like paid leave, casual leave, permanent service letter, 10%
increment letter, allowances as per the settlement dated
04.03.2008 and the claimant/workman was threatened with
termination when he would demand the same.
9. It has been further asserted that on 07.05.2008, when the
claimant/ workman reported for duty, he was not allowed
to punch the attendance card by Mr. Sanjay Verma and Ms.
Nisha Anand, who informed him that he was called by Mr.
C.M. Puri. It has also been asserted that when the
claimant/workman appeared before Mr. Puri, he was asked
as about his expectations upon which the claimant
/workman communicated to him that he wanted 10%
annual wage increment, allowances as per the agreement
dated 04.03.2008 between the management and
employees, paid leaves, casual leaves, leave encashment
etc. upon which Mr. C.M. Puri terminated his services and
paid the outstanding wages from 01.05.2008 to 06.05.2008
short by ₹269/- without any written notice and under
threat for implicating him in false cases. It has been further
Digitally
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) signed by
POOJA
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 4 of 22
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:18:35
+0530
asserted that the identity card and attendance punching
card of the claimant/workman were also snatched by the
management.
10.It has been further asserted that at the time of appointment
and during his services, the management obtained the
signatures of the claimant/workman on various papers
including blank vouchers, blank papers, blank letter pads,
settlement/ receipt, full and final settlement, receipt etc.
which were signed by the claimant/ workman as otherwise
the management would not have appointed him/ removed
him from service. It has also been asserted that due to the
same constraint, he did not make any complaint to the
police, Labour Department or any other department and
that he was also apprehending misuse of the said
documents as threatened by Mr C.M. Puri at the time of
removing him from the service.
11.It has also been asserted that a complaint dated 29.05.2008
was made to the SHO, PS Hauz Khas and on the same day
a demand letter was sent by the claimant/workman to the
management through registered AD against illegal
termination seeking reinstatement with full back wages
etc. but the management neither replied to the same nor
reinstated the claimant/workman. It has been further
asserted that a fresh demand letter dated 01.07.2008 was
sent to the management through registered AD and courier
due to some errors and omission of facts but the same was
also not replied to nor the claimant/workman was
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) POOJA
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management AGGARWAL Page No. 5 of 22
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2024.05.31
17:18:40 +0530
reinstated.
12.It has been further asserted that the termination of the
claimant/ workman without any charges, chargesheet,
without any reason or notice was violative of the labour
laws including Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial
Disputes Act. It has also been asserted that the claimant/
workman has not been reinstated despite repeated visits to
the management and is unemployed despite his best
efforts. Hence, the present claim.
Facts as per the written statement
13.In its written statement, the management raised
preliminary objections asserting that the claimant/
workman was working on probation w.e.f. 14.02.2007 and
that the period of probation was extended for a further
period of six months due to his unsatisfactory performance
as complaints were received by the management from the
officials under whose supervision the claimant/workman
used to work and the claimant/ workman never used to
complete his assigned task within the stipulated period of
time or report to the official under whose supervision he
used to work.
14.It has been further asserted that vide assessments dated
14.06.2007, 18.10.2007, 31.12.2007 and 03.04.2008 the
overall performance of the claimant/workman was found
to be below average due to which extension of his
probation period was recommended. It has been further
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) Digitally
signed by
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management POOJA Page No. 6 of 22
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:18:45
+0530
asserted that due to unsatisfactory performance, the
services of the claimant/ workman were terminated w.e.f.
06.05.2008, his accounts were duly settled and the
claimant/ workman also acknowledge his full and final
settlement without any protest.
15.It has been further asserted that on 06.05.2008, the
claimant/workman had misbehaved with his immediate
senior Ms. Nisha Anand and threatened her with dire
consequences upon which an FIR dated 12.05.2008 was
filed by Ms. Nisha Anand at PS Hauz Khas.
16.On merits, the management did not dispute the factum of
the claimant/ workman working as a Computer Operator
w.e.f. 14.02.2007 on probation. It has been further stated
that the settlement dated 04.03.2008 was between the
management and the permanent employees on 04.03.2008
and that the employees on probation were not entitled to
the same.
17.It has also been asserted that during the selection process
the claimant/workman had been duly informed about the
conditions of the services specifically about the probation
period and that he was aware that he would be on
probation for six months on joining the services of the
management and will not be entitled to leave during the
probation period. It has also been asserted that the
appointment letter had been issued to the claimant/
workman on the agreed terms which had been signed by
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) Digitally
signed by
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management POOJA Page No. 7 of 22
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:18:50
+0530
him without any protest.
18.It has been further asserted that subsequent to the joining
of the claimant/workman, he was issued the letter of
appointment and that there was no illegality therein as the
same was issued on the already accepted terms and
conditions. It has also been asserted that no letter of
confirmation was issued to the claimant/ workman after
expiry of his six months of probation and that the
confirmation after expiry of his probation cannot be
implied, it has to be express.
19.It has been further stated that the services of the claimant/
workman were terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory
performance as he was on probation, so when he reported
for duty on 06.05.2008, he was informed by his immediate
seniors that his services have been terminated w.e.f.
06.05.2008 and he had to submit his identity card and
attendance punching card after which the full and final
dues of the claimant/ workman were settled which were
accepted by him without any protest.
20.It has also been asserted that the management terminated
the services of the claimant/ workman as per the
appointment letter and that there was no necessity of
issuing chargesheet or show-cause notice before
terminating the services of the probationer on the ground
of unsatisfactory performance. The remaining averments
of the claimant/ workman have been denied on merits.
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) Digitally
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management signed by Page No. 8 of 22
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:18:55
+0530
21.No rejoinder has been filed by the claimant/workman.
Issues
22.From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated
24.09.2008:
(1) Whether the services of the workman were
terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the
management?
(2) Relief.
Workman Evidence
23.To prove his claim, the claimant/ workman has examined
only himself as WW-1 and tendered his evidence by way
of affidavit i.e. Ex.WW-1/A. He has also relied upon the
following documents :-
Sl.No Description of document Exhibit/Mark
1. Call letter for interview dated Ex.WW1/1
27.01.2007
2. Appointment letter dated Ex.WW1/2
15.03.2007
3. Complaint dated 08.05.2008 to Ex.WW1/3
the Labour Department (objected
to being a photocopy document)
4. Demand notice dated Ex.WW1/4
29.05.2008(objected to being a
photocopy document)
5. Complaint dated 29.05.2008 to Ex.WW1/5
SHO PS Hauz Khas (objected to
being a photocopy document)
6. Complaint dated 27.05.2008 Ex.WW1/6
given to the National Human
Rights Commission
Digitally
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) signed by
POOJA
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 9 of 22
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:19:01
+0530
The WW-1, claimant/workman was duly cross examined
on behalf of the management wherein inter-alia he referred
to the settlement i.e. Mark-WW1/M1.
Management Evidence
24.In its evidence, the management has also examined only
one witness i.e. MW-1 Mr. Jaspal Singh Dhadwal, who
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. MW-1/A and
relied upon the following documents :-
Sl.No. Description of document Exhibit/Mark
1. Appointment letter dated Already
15.03.2007 Ex.WW1/2
2. Letter dated 03.04.2008 for Ex.MW1/1
extension of probation period
3. Documents relating to Ex.MW1/2 to
performance and complaints Ex.MW1/5
received against the
claimant/workman
4. Documents pertaining to Ex.MW1/6 to
termination of service and Ex.MW1/9
payment of full and final dues to
the claimant /workman
5. Copy of complaint dated Ex.MW1/10
28.08.2008 to SHO PS Hauz
Khas
He was duly cross-examined on behalf of claimant/
workman.
25.Final arguments were then advanced by the Authorized
Representatives for both the parties which have been
carefully considered along with the evidence on record and
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) Digitally
signed by
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management POOJA Page No. 10 of 22
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:19:05
+0530
after careful consideration of the same, the issue wise
findings are as under:
Issue-Wise Findings
Issue no. (1) Whether the services of the workman
were terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by
the management?
26.It is a settled proposition of law that a plea is to be proved
by the party who has set up the same. Strength for this
interpretation is drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court in Automobile Association of Upper
India v. P.O. Labour Court II, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 456.
That being so, it was for the claimant/ workman to prove
that his services were terminated illegally and/or
unjustifiably by the management.
27.At the very outset, it is noted that the existence of
employer-employee relationship between the parties is not
in dispute. The claimant/workman has asserted himself to
be an employee of the management w.e.f. 14.02.2007
which has been admitted by the management in its
pleadings.
28.However, while the claimant/workman has asserted
himself to be a permanent employee, the management has
asserted him to have been employed on probation with no
confirmation letter having been issued to him after expiry
of probation period, rather the same having been extended
for further 6 months due to his unsatisfactory performance.
Digitally
signed by
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) POOJA
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management POOJA AGGARWAL Page No. 11 of 22
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:19:10
+0530
29.It is pertinent to note here that the claimant/workman has
failed to lead any evidence to prove that he was working
with the management since 14.02.2017 as a permanent
employee. Rather, clause 2 of the appointment letter i.e.
Ex. WW1/2, relied upon by both parties, specifically
provides for the period of probation.
30.For the sake of convenience, the relevant clause is
reproduced as under:
"2. You will be on probation for a period of six
months, which would be extended if necessary,
during which period your services are liable to be
terminated without any notice and assigning any
reason. You will not be entitled to any of the
facilities or leave that are enjoyed by regular
employee of the Institute during the period of
probation."
31.The factum of the claimant/ workman being on probation
when appointed by the management has also been
admitted by the WW1 claimant/workman himself as
during his cross-examination he admitted that his
appointment was on probation.
32.It is duly noted that the claimant/ workman has also taken
the stand that he was not aware about any probation clause
till he received the appointment letter. In his pleadings, he
has stated that he was not given the appointment letter
initially and when he was given the appointment letter on
15.03.2007, he was not given an opportunity to read the
same before receiving the same, but when he read it, he
came to know that it contained a probation clause of 6
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) Digitally
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management signed by Page No. 12 of 22
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:19:15
+0530
months upon which he talked to the management who
pacified him stating that his services would be confirmed
after six months and he would be given a confirmation
letter after completion of probation period of six months
which was believed by him and he did not raise any
objection.
33.That being so, as per the pleadings of the claimant/
workman, no objection or protest was raised by him to the
terms of appointment letter which included the probation
clause.
34.However, in his evidence affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the
claimant/ workman went on to testify that on the next day,
after receiving the appointment letter, he had protested the
terms of the said letter but the management threatened to
terminate his services due to which he kept quiet.
35.The factum of the claimant/workman having protested and
thereafter, the management having threatened to terminate
his services has been testified to for the first time in Ex
WW1/A.
36.Surprisingly, during his cross-examination, WW1
claimant/ workman again testified that he had never
protested against the contents of the appointment letter
issued to him, thereby abandoning his version as to him
having even protested against the contents of the
appointment letter, what to say about the management
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014)
Digitally
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management signed by Page No. 13 of 22
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:19:21
+0530
threatening to terminate his services.
37.This variation in the stands taken by the claimant/workman
adversely affect his credibility, and indicates that he had in
fact accepted the terms of the employment as mentioned in
the appointment letter including as to the probation period
and that the plea of the same coming to his knowledge
after receipt of the appointment letter is merely an
afterthought. The admission of WW1 in his cross-
examination as to his appointment being on probation also
lends credence to the said inference.
38. That being so, the factum of the claimant/workman having
been employed by the management on probation as
opposed to being a regular employee of the management
stands proved.
39.It is also pertinent to note that there is no evidence on
record to indicate that the claimant/workman was
confirmed as a regular/ permanent employee after his
period of probation. Rather, WW1 claimant/ workman has
himself admitted in his cross-examination that he was
never given any confirmation letter.
40.Even in his statement of claim, the claimant/ workman has
himself referred to the letter issued by the management
dated 03.04.2008. The same letter has been relied upon by
the management as Ex MW1/1. For the sake of
convenience, the relevant contents thereof are reproduced
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) POOJA
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management AGGARWAL Page No. 14 of 22
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2024.05.31
17:19:27 +0530
as under:
"Your performance has not been found satisfactory as
communicated by your Head of Department/In-
Charge, hence I am constrained to extend your
Probation period for a further period of 06 months
w.e.f. 01 Feb 2008.
I do hope that you will show your marked
improvement in your performance, and strive hard to
continue your association with IMM."
41.A bare perusal of the said letter Ex MW1/2 reveals that the
period of probation of the claimant/workman had been
extended vide the said letter and when read with in
conjunction with the admission of the claimant/workman
that he was never given any appointment letter, it proves
that the claimant/ workman continued to be on probation
and was never confirmed.
42.It is also pertinent to note that in his own evidence
affidavit Ex.WW1/A, the claimant/ workman has testified
that he had demanded extension of his probation period,
and he has also admitted in his cross-examination, that he
had been issued the extension of probation on his demand.
That being so, it does not lie in the mouth of the claimant/
workman to agitate that his probation had ended.
43.During the course of arguments, it was noted that initially,
the period of probation was only for six months w.e.f
14.02.2007 as per the appointment letter i.e. Ex WW1/2,
and that would imply that the initial period of the
probation was only till 14.08.2007. The letter extending
the probation i.e. Ex MW1/2 was issued only on
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) Digitally
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management signed by Page No. 15 of 22
POOJA
POOJA AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31
17:19:33
+0530
03.04.2008 extending the probation period w.e.f.
01.02.2008. Hence, there was a gap of about 5.5 months
between the period when the initial period of probation
ended and the date from when the probation was again
extended.
44.However, even the said gap does not lead to any inference
of there being an implied or deemed confirmation of the
claimant/ workman. In G.S. Ramaswamy v. Inspector
General of Police, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 73, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed that:
"The law on the question has been settled by this
Court in Sukhbans Singh v. State of Punjab1. It
has been held in that case that a probationer
cannot after the expiry of the probationary period
automatically acquire the status of a permanent
member of a service, unless of course the rules
under which he is appointed expressly provide
for such a result. Therefore even though a
probationer may have continued to act in the post
to which he is appointed on probation for more
than the initial 'period of probation, he cannot
become a permanent servant merely because of
efflux of time, unless the Rules of service which
govern him specifically lay down that the
probationer will be automatically confirmed after
the initial period of probation is over."
(Emphasis Supplied)
45.In Sita World Travel (India) (P) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court No. 4 Delhi, 1996 SCC OnLine Del 237, it
was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court:
"9. A Division Bench of this Court had an occasion
to consider the question of confirmation of a
1 A.I.R. 1962. S.C. 1711.
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) POOJA
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management AGGARWAL Page No. 16 of 22
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2024.05.31
17:19:39 +0530
probationer in the case of B.S. Sokhi v. Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, Punjab & Sind
Bank reported as (56) 1994 DLT 127. Thereafter
considering the various pronouncements of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in different cases this
Court had concluded that where-ever it is
specifically provided that the period
of probation cannot be extended beyond a certain
period fixed under the contract of the rules
applicable and the employee is allowed to continue
to work beyond that maximum period, he could
be deemed to have been either confirmed or allowed
to continue as a temporary employee but he in such
cases would cease to be a probationer. But in case
there is no such embargo in the contract of
employment the probation could be extended and in
any event the employee would not cease to be a
probationer. The result would be that it does not
follow that at the end of such specified period
of probation he obtained confirmation automatically
even though no order of confirmation is passed in
that behalf, unless the terms of appointment clearly
indicate that the confirmation would automatically
follow at the end of the specified period or as has
been noticed above, if there are specific service rules
to that effect. The mere expiration of
the probation period does not necessarily lead
to confirmation....."
(Emphasis Supplied)
46.In the present case, no rules of the management governing
the employment of the claimant/ workman have been
brought on record to prove that he would acquire the status
of confirmed/permanent employee of the management
upon efflux of initial period of probation. The terms as
enumerated in the appointment letter Ex WW1/2 also do
not prescribe any maximum period beyond which the
probation could not have been extended.
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) POOJA
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management AGGARWAL Page No. 17 of 22
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2024.05.31
17:19:45 +0530
47.Hence, even though the claimant/workman continued his
services after the expiry of the initial period of probation
and it was thereafter that he was issued a letter extending
his probation, the same does not prove his confirmation
with the management nor does the same confer any status
of permanent employee upon him. Hence, it stands proved
that the claimant/workman continued to be on probation
with the management.
48.In respect of the termination of services of the claimant/
workman, it is noted that the factum of the services of the
claimant/workman having been terminated by the
management is not in dispute as the management has
admitted as to having terminated the services of the
claimant/ workman in its pleadings itself.
49.However, as already noted, the claimant/workman was on
probation when his services were terminated by the
management and as per terms of his appointment letter i.e.
Ex. WW1/2, during such period of probation, his services
were liable to be terminated without any reason and
assigning any reason.
50.It is settled proposition of law that termination of service
of a probationer in terms of the stipulation contained in the
contract of employment does not tantamount to
"retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the
Act since it is covered by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) POOJA
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management AGGARWAL Page No. 18 of 22
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2024.05.31
17:19:52 +0530
the Act and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act
does not get attracted in such cases.
51.Strength for this interpretation is derived from the
judgment of Mahinder Singh v. Indian Airlines Ltd., 2016
SCC OnLine Del 5008, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court that:
"10. The question whether the termination of services
of the workman during the probation period
tantamounts to retrenchment came up for
consideration before Supreme Court in several
decisions.
11. In M. Venugopal (supra)2, service of the Workman
was terminated during the extended probation period
on account of non-fulfillment of the condition of
achieving minimum business target stipulated in the
order of appointment. The Supreme Court held that
termination of services of the Workman was not
deemed to be "retrenchment" within the meaning of
Section 2(oo) of the Act even in respect of the period
prior to introduction of clause (bb) in Section 2(oo) of
the Act. Thus, non compliance of the requirements of
Section 25-F was held not to vitiate or nullify the
order of termination of Workman.
12. Again in Escorts Limited (supra)3, Workman was
appointed on temporary basis for a period of two
months. The terms of appointment enabled the
employer to terminate the services at any stage
without assigning any reason. The Supreme Court
held that the termination of services under the said
terms even though effected before the expiry of the
specified period, did not amount to retrenchment.
Consequently, Section 25-F and 25-G of the Act did
not come into play.
13. In Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. (supra)4, workman
was terminated during the period of probation. The
2 M. Venugopal v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,
Machilipatnam, A.P., (1994) 2 SCC 323
3 Escorts Limited v. Presiding Officer, (1997) 11 SCC 521
4 Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. v. Labour Court No. 1 Gwalior, (2002) 9 SCC
655
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014)
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management POOJA Page No. 19 of 22
AGGARWAL
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2024.05.31
17:20:03 +0530
Labour Court as well as the High Court took a view
that termination amounted to retrenchment for non-
compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act. The Supreme Court reversed the views of the
Labour Court and the High Court and observed thus:
"6 The order of employment itself clearly sets
out the terms thereafter which makes it clear
that the facility of providing training to him
could be put to an end at any time without
assigning any reason whatsoever and his
services could be regularised only on
satisfactory completion of his training. If these
clauses are read together, it is clear he was
under probation during the relevant time and if
his services are not satisfactory, the same could
be put an end to. It is clear that the respondent
had been appointed as a Trainee Service
Technician and for a period he had to undergo
the training to the satisfaction of the appellant
and if his work was not satisfactory during that
period the facility could be withdrawn at any
time and he would be regularised only on
completion of his training. Thus the
respondent's services were terminated before
expiry of the probationary period. In such a
case, question of issue of notice before
terminating the service as claimed by the
respondent does not arise. Escorts case [(1997)
11 SCC 521 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 235] is
identical with the present case. Following the
said decision and for the reasons stated therein
these appeals are allowed. The order made by
the High Court affirming the award made by
the Labour Court is set aside and the claim
made by the respondent is dismissed."
14. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the
Supreme Court governing the field it can be safely
culled out that termination of service of a probationer
in terms of the stipulation contained in the contract of
employment does not tantamount to "retrenchment"
within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act since
it is covered by clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the
Act. Thus, Section 25-F of the Act does not get
POOJA
LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) AGGARWAL
Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management Page No. 20 of 22
Digitally signed by
POOJA AGGARWAL
Date: 2024.05.31
17:20:10 +0530
attracted in such cases.
.....
19. In the instant case also, the appellant was not conferred with the status of confirmed employee. From Clause 4 of the letter of appointment, it cannot be inferred that after expiry of period of probation for a period of one year, the petitioner got the status of a confirmed employee. Since, he was still on probation, and in terms of Clause 4 of the Appointment Letter, his services have been terminated in view of his 'unsatisfactory performance' same does not tantamount to 'retrenchment' within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
52.Hence, in view of the aforesaid legal proposition and the facts of this case read with the terms and conditions laid down in Ex WW1/2, it is held that the claimant/workman has failed to prove that the termination of his services when he was on probation, amounted to retrenchment and consequently, the factum of the same being in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act also remains unproved.
53.It is also pertinent to note that the claimant/workman has asserted that his termination amounted to violation of Section 25G and 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act as well. However, with the claimant/workman having failed to bring his termination within the meaning of retrenchment and the said sections i.e. Section 25G and 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act being in respect of procedure for retrenchment and re-employment of retrenched worker, the same are held to be inapplicable to LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) Digitally Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management signed by POOJA Page No. 21 of 22 POOJA AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31 17:20:16 +0530 the case at hand, and hence there is no question of the violation of the same.
54.In view of the aforesaid reasons, this issue is decided against the claimant/workman and in favour of the management.
Relief
55.In view of the above discussion and findings on issue no.
(1), it is held that the claimant/ workman is not entitled to get any relief as he has failed to prove that his termination was illegal or unjustifiable as the same falls within the ambit of Section 2 (oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The reference is answered accordingly.
56.Copy of Award be uploaded on the website of RADC and another copy be sent to the concerned department through proper channels as per rules.
57.File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by POOJA POOJA AGGARWAL Announced in the Open Court AGGARWAL Date:
2024.05.31 today i.e. on 31th May 2024 17:20:23 +0530 (Pooja Aggarwal) Presiding Officer Labour Court -01 Rouse Avenue District Courts Complex New Delhi/sy LC No. 2421/2016 (Old No. 192/2014) Ramdhan vs. M/s Institute of Marketing and Management Page No. 22 of 22