Delhi High Court
M/S Bharat Wagon & Engineering Co. ... vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 30 August, 2011
Author: S. Muralidhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P. (C) 1210/2001
Reserved on: August 05, 2011
Decision on: August 30, 2011
M/S BHARAT WAGON & ENGINEERING CO. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Hari Narayan Takkar with Mr. S.H.
Khan, Advocates.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. N.A. Sebastian with
Ms. Tania Sebastian, Advocates for R-2.
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No
JUDGMENT
30.08.2011
1. This petition is directed against an award dated 4th May 2000 passed by the Labour
Court allowing the claim of Respondent No. 2 workman in ID No. 64 of 1991. By the
impugned Award, the Labour Court held the termination of the services of the
workman to be bad in law and directed his reinstatement with 50% back wages.
2. In his statement of claim filed before the Labour Court, Respondent No. 2 stated
that he was appointed by the management of Respondent No. 1 as a cleaner/attendant
on daily wages with effect from 13th May 1985 to 30th August 1986. Thereafter, by a
letter dated 26th August 1986, he was appointed on a monthly salary of Rs. 750/- with
effect from 1st September 1986. The said letter indicated that the appointment was for
a temporary period of twelve months and during that period, his services were subject
to termination with twenty-four hours‟ notice „without assigning any reason‟.
3. The services of Respondent No. 2 were terminated with effect from 31st August
1987, enclosing a cheque for the salary for the month of August 1987. The claim of
the workman was that he had, in fact, been appointed on a regular basis and that he
was even sent for a medical examination for the purpose of confirmation of his service
after successful completion of probation.
4. The Petitioner management resisted this claim on the ground that the workman was
not regularly employed and since he had only been on probation, his services could be
terminated at any time by giving a twenty-four hours‟ notice.
5. In his evidence before the Labour Court, the workman stated that the General
Manager („GM‟) of the Petitioner had asked him to bring his original letter of
appointment in order that he should be made a permanent employee. After the
workman had handed over the said letter to the GM, the GM changed the contents of
the said letter. He also produced letters dated 22nd August 1986 (Exhibit WW1/11) in
terms of which he was sent for medical examination, the appointment letter in original
issued to him dated 26th August 1986 (Exhibit WW1/13), and letter of the same date
issued to him subsequently (Exhibit WW1/14). There was a significant difference
between the letter dated 26th August 1986 (Exhibit WW1/13) and Exhibit WW1/14 of
the same date which was subsequently issued to the Petitioner. Para 2 of the letter Ex
WW1/14 contained the line: "this appointment is purely temporary for a period of
twelve months only from the date of joining". The above line is missing in the letter
Ex.WW1/13 issued to the workman. The original letter issued to the workman
(Ex.WW1/13) states that he would receive a consolidated salary of Rs.750/- per month
during probation and after confirmation his salary would be "fixed in the grade of Rs.
550-10-600-11-655/- as per the normal rules of the Company". This entire line is
missing in the subsequent letter. Para 3 of the letter dated 26th August 1986 produced
by the workman (Exhibit WW1/13) states that "he will be on probation for a period of
12 months from the date of joining. During this period your service is subject to
termination with 24 hours notice without assigning any reasons."
6. A letter dated 6th April 1987 (Exhibit WW1/12) has been written by the
management to the Employees State Insurance Corporation (`ESIC‟) enclosing the ESI
Identity Card in respect of Respondent No. 2 workman. Another letter dated 22nd
August, 1986 (Exhibit WW1/11) states that Respondent No. 2 workman is being sent
for medical examination and then there is the termination letter dated 31st August 1987
which states that the Petitioner‟s services are being dispensed with from that date.
7. On an analysis of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the
Labour Court concluded that the said proviso was not attracted and that since the
appointment of Respondent No. 2 could not be said to be for a fixed period of twelve
months, the Labour Court accepted the versions of Respondent No. 2 workman that
the letter, Exhibit WW1/13, was the genuine letter and that the one at Exhibit WW1/14
appeared to have been issued subsequently.
8. Yet, there was a question before the Labour Court, as to whether Respondent No. 2
workman was only on probation. The Labour Court proceeded on the footing that the
services of a workman on probation could be terminated only for unsatisfactory work
and since Respondent No. 2 workman‟s services were not found unsatisfactory, he
could not have been terminated simpliciter.
9. The submission of the Petitioner that the above finding of the Labour Court is
erroneous appears to be justified in law. The Labour Court failed to appreciate that
even if Exhibit WW1/13 dated 26th August 1986 produced by Respondent No. 2
workman was the original letter of appointment, it clearly stated that Respondent No. 2
workman was employed only on probation, for a period of twelve months from the
date of joining, and further that during the said period, his services would be subject to
termination with twenty-four hours‟ notice „without assigning any reasons‟. In other
words, during the period of probation, his services could be terminated simpliciter.
That is what was done in the present case. There was no requirement that the
management could terminate his services only for unsatisfactory work.
10. In the circumstances, it is not possible to agree with the finding of the Labour
Court that the termination of the services of Respondent No. 2 workman was illegal.
11. Consequently, the impugned Award dated 4th May 2000 is hereby set aside. The
amount deposited by the Petitioner with the Court will be returned to it within two
weeks by the Registry, together with the interest accrued thereon.
12. The petition is allowed in the above terms, but in the circumstances, with no order
as to costs.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
AUGUST 30, 2011
anb'
