Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. In their written statement, the petitioner management claimed that termination of the respondent‟s services was in accordance with the terms of his services contained in para 2(i) of his appointment letter dated 26.06.1996. It was claimed that though the termination was on account of unsatisfactory service and negligence on the part of the respondent, the termination order was innocuous and was not penal in nature. The respondent contended that the services of probationer may be terminated during probation if his performance is not satisfactory prior to the expiry of the period of probation. So far as the respondent‟s claim for parity in pay scale with his counterparts-

[Emphasis supplied ]

10. Consequently, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the Industrial Adjudicator could not have disregarded the decision of the Supreme Court in Balram Sahu (supra) and that being the latest decision rendered after consideration of the earlier decisions, was binding and ought to have been followed by the Industrial Adjudicator.

11. Mr. Rungta has also drawn the attention of the Court to the decision of the Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & Others, AIR 2006 SC 1806, and in particular paragraph 46 thereof, to submit that the respondent workman, as a casual employee, could not seek parity of pay scale or wages with permanent counterparts. In the relevant paragraph 46 of its decision in Umadevi (supra), the Supreme Court observed as follows: