C.W.P. No.11412 of 1993 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.11412 of 1993 DATE OF DECISION : 1.6.2011 Mr.Amarjeet Singh PETITIONER VERSUS Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & another RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri G.S.Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner impugns the award of the Labour Court, Patiala dated 17.8.1992. His services having been terminated, he had claimed a reference to the following effect :- “Whether termination of services of Sh.Amarjeet Singh workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled?” The Tribunal declined the reference primarily on two grounds (i) that the petitioner had failed to implead SUGARFED as a necessary party and the relief C.W.P. No.11412 of 1993 -2- was claimed only against Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., and (ii) that the petitioner had claimed that his termination order dated 27.8.1987 was erroneous, whereas no order of this date had been passed and the order was dated 21.8.1987 and thus, the reference claimed by the petitioner was found to be defective. In the instant writ petition, the prayer made is for setting aside the award on the grounds that it has been passed without appreciating the controversy. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Labour Court had certainly committed an error in declining the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the same pertained to the order dated 27.8.1987, whereas the order was in fact, passed on 21.8.1987. A perusal of the question raised in the reference does not indicate that it pertains to any order of the specific date, except to say that whether the termination of the services of the petitioner was justified or not. But this itself does not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the simple reason that the respondents have, along with their reply, placed on record an order which shows that the petitioner's services were terminated on 21.8.1987 during the period of probation on account of his work and conduct being unsatisfactory. The petitioner was appointed as Lab.Incharge on 24.7.1985 and the terms of his appointment clearly stipulated that he would remain on probation for a period of two years which period expired on 24.7.1987. The termination order was passed on 21.8.1987, as is evident from the order which has been placed on record by the respondents. The plea of the petitioner that the period of two years stood expired is without any merit, in view of the order which has been referred to by the respondents. It is thus, evident that the services of the petitioner were terminated on account of his work and conduct being unsatisfactory which was the condition of employment and hence the respondents were very well within their right to C.W.P. No.11412 of 1993 -3- terminate his services during the period of probation. That apart, the finding of the Labour Court also appears to be correct that the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was passed by the competent authority of the SUGARFED and the petitioner failed to implead them as a party as a result of which the necessary response of the concerned party could not come on record. Consequently, the writ petition is without any merit and is dismissed. (MAHESH GROVER) June 1, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO