Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. The observation of the Ld. Labour Court, in para 29 appears to be in presumption only and there is no legal base for such observation. Further observation of the Ld. Judge, that the complainants were appointed on probation. They completed minimum period of probation. Their termination was not for unsatisfactory performance. In such circumstances, there termination amounts to unfair labour practice under item 1(b &f) of schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 is totally misconceived particularly in the light of observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the matter of Kishore Chandra Samal V/s Divisional Manager, Orissa State, Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. Reported in 2006 1 CLR page No.29, wherein the Hon'ble High Court, pleased, to held that " the appointment was for specific period- No legality in the order of the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in para 7 of the judgment observe that, In Morinda Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd. V/s Ram Kishan and Ors. Reported in 1996, 1 CLR 17. SC; wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, observe that, " The question is whether such a cessation would amount to retrenchment. Since it is only a seasonal work, the respondents cannot be said to have been retrenched in view of what is stated in clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act."