Civil Writ Petition No.9428 of 1988 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Civil Writ Petition No.9428 of 1988 Date of Decision:3.11.2008 Haryana Backward Classes Kalyan Nigam Ltd., Chandigarh .....Appellant Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and another .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shweta Bawa, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Haryana Backward Classes Kalyan Nigam Limited under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the award dated 10.8.1988 Annexure P.9. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Lajpat Rai, respondent (hereinafter to be referred as as `the workman') was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist vide appointment letter Annexure P.1 which contained a condition of one month's notice for termination or leaving service on either side. His services were terminated vide order dated 4.11.1982 as the same were not required. He filed the suit for declaration to the effect that the impugned order dated 4.11.1982 passed by the petitioner vide which his services were terminated is illegal, null and void with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from terminating his services. As ad interim injunction was refused, the workman got his suit dismissed as withdrawn. He filed reference in the Labour Court for setting Civil Writ Petition No.9428 of 1988 -2- aside the order Annexure P.2 as well as reinstatement. The petitioner on service appeared in the Labour Court and filed written statement. After hearing the respective representatives of the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala vide impugned award Ex..9 held that the workman shall be entitled to reinstatement with all the consequential benefits of continuity of service and back-wages. That this award is liable to be set aside on the ground as embodied in this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala in the impugned award with due care and circumspection. Mr. R.M. Malik, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued with great eloquence that the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court has held that the impugned termination of the workman was invalid because no notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to him losing sight of the fact that the workman was on probation period during which his services could be terminated without holding domestic enquiry and even without assigning any reason and thus, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. To fortify this submission, he has placed reliance upon the observations made in re: Life Insurance Corporation of India and another v. Shri Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni, Judgments Today 1997 (8) Supreme Court 373. To overcome these submissions, Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Advocate representing the respondent- workman contended that the termination of the workman was by way of punishment and that being so, the termination order was illegal. Civil Writ Petition No.9428 of 1988 -3- I have given a deep and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions. As per Annexure P.1, the workman was appointed as Clerk- cum-Typist. His services could be terminated by giving one month's notice on either side except in case of removal for misconduct. He was put on probation for a period of one year from the date of his appointment as per the terms and conditions enshrined in his appointment letter Annexure P.1. As per Annexure P.2, he was served with one month's notice in relation to termination of his services with immediate effect as his services were no longer required. In re: Shri Raghavendra Seshagiri Rao Kulkarni (supra), the Apex Court has held that services of a probationer cannot be equated with a permanent employee and no departmental inquiry is required, moreso, when term of appointment stipulates such termination without notice. If the matter is viewed in the background of these observations, the period of probation is a period of test during which the work and conduct of an employee is under scrutiny. Thus, the workman being on probation, departmental inquiry was not required. As is apparent on the face of Annexue P.2, one month's notice was served upon the workman. That being so, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala was not justified in holding that the impugned termination of the workman was invalid, because no notice or retrenchment compensation was paid to him. Consequently, this petition is accepted and the impugned award is set aside. As per the order dated 7.10.1991 passed by this Court in C.M. No.4732 of 1991 in this petition, the workman was to give a suitable representation with regards to the payment of emoluments. It is also observed in the order dated 21.2.1991 passed in C.M. No.510 of 1991 in this petition that the applicant- workman is entitled to the grant of wages. Civil Writ Petition No.9428 of 1988 -4- The impugned award was passed wayback in 1988. This petition was admitted on 27.10.1988. The operation of the impugned award was stayed subject to the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It would be doing inequity to the workman if at this stage, he is directed to refund the wages received by him during the pendency of the petition. As such, it is ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to recover back the wages paid to the workman during the pendency of this petition. Disposed of accordingly. November 03, 2008 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE