CWP No. 6128 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6128 of 2000 Date of decision August 21, 2009 Sandeep Kumar ....... Petitioner Versus The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. R. K. Sharma, Advocate for Ms. Jyoti Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjeet Singh Batta, Advocate Mr. M. S. Lobana, Advocate for the respondents. **** 1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? No K. Kannan, J(oral). 1. The award in challenge is a rejection of claim by the workman that he was entitled to reinstatement. The Labour Court found that the termination had been effected by the impugned order dated 12.3.1993 on the ground that his conduct and work during the probation was not satisfactory and therefore, his services were being terminated with immediate effect. If a workman had been only on probation, the termination of service during the probation cannot be in any way assailed. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that an advertisement for the post had been issued on 23.8.1991 and he was responding to the advertisement with his application on 16.9.1991 (Annexure R2/1). Subsequently, he was appointed after an interview and an agreement was entered into between CWP No. 6128 of 2000 2 the Management and the workman on 21.9.1991. Clause 1 of the agreement provided that the training period in the first instance shall be for a period of six months which could be enhanced by another period of six months at the discretion of the Management. The stipend during the training period was Rs.700/-. The six month's period had expired on 29.3.1992 but it was extended further for another period of six months. Although, there is no documentary evidence of the same, it is clear from the fact that the Management ultimately gave a firm order on 21.9.1992 which was on the completion of the next six month's period. A fresh appointment was made as Assistant Operator-III on 21.9.1992 on a regular scale of Rs.825-1700/-. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was the very same job he was doing as a trainee and the fresh appointment on regular scale of pay would falsify the plea that he was merely a probationer. Such a word had been used in the appointment letter only to keep the workman in tenterhooks. The justification that the Management had that he was a probationer and his services could be terminated, according to the learned counsel, cannot be valid if the appointment order is seen in context of the first appointment on 21.9.1991. It would show that it had contemplated a probation only for a period of six months with a further extension of another six months. There was no question of putting him again on probation when a fresh appointment was made on 21.9.1992. 3. In my view, the appointment letter which was made on 21.9.1992 cannot be seen in isolation and it should be noticed that the workman was not being paid any stipend but he was put on a regular scale of pay. The reference to the extension of probation was not, under the circumstances, appropriate and it ought to be seen merely on an expression of no value. The termination could not have been made without reference to the provisions of Section 25-F for the termination must be CWP No. 6128 of 2000 3 taken to fall within the expression of Section 2 (oo) under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. If the termination was bad the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement having regard to the regular appointment that had been offered to him, but the issue relating to back wages, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any statement either in the claim statement or in the writ petition that he was not gainfully employed. The workman was only entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but however, there will be no order as to back wages. The order of the Labour Court is set aside and the writ petition is allowed as above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE August 21, 2009 archana