Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. The petitioner Brij Mohan Agarwal is arguing the matter in person. He has been heard on many days. He challenges the award of the Labour Court (I) U. P. Sarvodaya Napar, Kanpur. The award is dated December 22, 1975 (1985?). The petitioner was a probationer. The period of probation was for three months. He had worked for 17 days and the probationary period was drawn to a close, the asserts, abruptly. Messrs Hindustan Chains Private Limited, Kanpur, the employer, paid the petitioner for the duration of the period when he worked. This was 17 days. The petitioner was not satisfied with the action of the employer. He raised an industrial dispute after conciliation between the employer and the employee failed. Initially the State declined to refer the matter for adjudication in 1978, on being satisfied that it was not a matter which needs to be referred before the Labour Court. Three years later apparently the petitioner persuaded the State Government that the matter should be referred. Thus, it was referred to for adjudication belatedly before the Labour Court (I), Kanpur and was numbered as Adjudication Case No. 200 of 1973 (1983?). The Labour Court after having examined the matter, thereafter came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief and certified the action of the employer of terminating the services of the petitioner after 17 days of work. The petitioner being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, aforesaid, filed the present petition before this Court.

2. This Court does not find the award of the Labour Court correct. The Court feels that, the petitioner's services could not be ended abruptly after 17 days regard being had to the contention of the employer that the period of probation was curtailed not because of misconduct but on the ground of simple inefficiency as the workman would not work. If that be so then the law is settled that probation must see its duration and the employer, if unsatisfied with the work of the workman, must bide his patience in ending the period of probation at the close of it and not midway, otherwise the probationary period will become a handle for an employer to fire a workman and resort to unfair labour practice in getting the workman during probation, fired prematurely. The employer may, the law suggests, curtail the period of probation prematurely only on account of misconduct. If such an action is taken then of course the workman is entitled to receive an opportunity to explain the charge of misconduct against him as it affects his personal credibility and reputation. These are, thus, the parameters of the dispute as examined by this Court.

4. Though the petitioner intimated the Court that while he has been arguing the matter he has otherwise had access to the chambers of Mr. K.P. Agarwal, Senior Advocate to receive books and journals.

5. After the matter had been heard at length the Court was satisfied that with the probationary period having been curtailed prematurely the petitioner as workman was entitled to receive the entire monies representing the probationary period and that it was not correct of the Labour Court to have answered the reference against the petitioner when the employer paid him 17 days wages. This Court also felt that if the petitioner is to receive monies for the entire probationary period then notwithstanding that his services were terminated 19 years ago, he is entitled to receive monies for the entire probationary period with interest. The Court has already declared it so to the petitioner and the employer that this interest will stand at 10%. This implies that barring 17 days of wages which has been received by the petitioner the wages representing the rest of the probationary period ought to be paid to him with 10% interest. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the employer. Mr. R.K. Tiwari, Advocate accepted the proposition of the Court. At this stage the Court also asked the employer that it is not necessary that the workman must receive monies which will now be payable to him as a consequence of moving an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, It would be better if the petitioner were to be saved further litigation and the amount which now will be payable to him is paid to him direct. The Court asked the petitioner whether he would like payment in terms of order made by this Court by being made available, before the Court on a date indicated when this may be made over to him. The petitioner expressed a desire that the payment be made by a bank draft and be sent to his address. The address as given by the petitioner at the Bar of the Court is Brij Mohan Agarwal, 4400, Church and Mission Road, Delhi-110006. This is the same address as is on the format of the writ petition. Upon hearing the declaration of this Court as above, the petitioner insists it is the order of reinstatement which he must have and desired that this court notices certain cases cited by him. As the petitioner feels dissatisfied notwithstanding that the petition is being allowed and in the face of the order of this Court that the amount of 17 days wages was incorrect and be must have the entire wages for the entire probationary period, the court is noticing the cases cited by the petitioner.

6. The petitioner desires the Court to accept the proposition that the termination of his services is illegal during the period of probation and that his probation continues and he is entitled to reinstatement upon a declaration by this Court that he is a permanent employee. The Court has already indicated on what the court had expressed. Monetary reliefs to the petitioner cannot be stretched more than the duration of the probationary period.

7. The petitioner desires that the court notice the cases which he has cited at the Bar.