IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.13563 of 2009 Date of decision : 31.3.2011 Jagdish Singh ....Petitioner Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... Present : Mr.R.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Amrit Paul, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. ..... MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Lab Technician on 9.6.1995. The terms of appointment contemplate that he would be on probation for a period of two years. On 12.11.1996 by virtue of order Annexure P-2 his services were terminated as the respondents did not find his work and conduct to be satisfactory. They offered to pay the amount for the unexpired period of notice. At the request of the petitioner he was again taken back in service on 9.1.1997 and the earlier order dated 12.11.1996 terminating the services of the petitioner was withdrawn. Three months after that i.e. on 4.4.1997 his services were again terminated and along with the order of termination three demand drafts amounting to Rs.8,672/- were served C.W.P.No.13563 of 2009 -2- upon the petitioner. The details of the payments covered under the demand drafts are as follows :- “1. Draft No.461723 Dtd. 4-4-97 for Rs.542-00 towards 4 days salary from 1-4-97 to 4-4-97. 2. Draft No.461721 Dtd.4-4-97 for Rs.4065-00 towards one month's salary in lieu of notice period. 3. Draft No.461722 Dtd.4-4-97 for Rs.4065-00 towards compensation for services rendered by you in this college as per Labour Act. Total Rs.8672-00 ” Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute to say that there was no compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and that no enquiry was held before terminating his services. The reference was declined and it was held that there was sufficient compliance of the provisions of Section 25F and further since the petitioner was on probation, his services could be terminated if his work and conduct was not found satisfactory. The reference answered against the petitioner is the reason of filing of the instant writ petition whereby while impugning the said award of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the grievance of the petitioner by saying that no enquiry was held before terminating the services of the petitioner and there was non- compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, as merely photo stat copies of the drafts were sent which implied that the respondents had not offered the amount to the petitioner. C.W.P.No.13563 of 2009 -3- On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 has referred to the findings recorded by the Tribunal to say that there was no requirement of holding of enquiry in view of the fact that the work and conduct of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory and since the amount had been sent by way of demand drafts, even though the respondents were not obliged to comply with the provisions of Section 25F, yet the needful having been done, the petitioner could not raise any grievance. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petitioner was found to be an errant employee who defied his seniors and also was indisciplined. He was under probation for a period of two years and his services were terminated well within that period on account of his conduct. The respondents were thus very well within their right to terminate the services of the petitioner on account of his work and conduct being found unsatisfactory. The grievance of the petitioner that there was non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act is also misplaced as it is clearly mentioned in the impugned order of termination as also in the award of the Tribunal which finding was recorded on the basis of record that the petitioner was handed out the drafts of Rs.8,672/- as a measure of compliance of the provisions of Section 25F but he refused to receive the same and consequently the respondents once again sent him a registered notice along with the requisites of the termination order and the drafts which were in the second case photo copies of the said drafts. Once the petitioner was given drafts and he refused to accept the same, he cannot turn around to say that in the second attempt to serve notice C.W.P.No.13563 of 2009 -4- upon the petitioner the photo stat copies of the drafts having been sent resulted in non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act. As observed earlier, since the amount has been sent to the petitioner, the respondents had satisfactory discharged the requirement of the compliance of Section 25F of the Act and thus the grievance of the petitioner on this account is misplaced. The writ petition is thus held to be without any merit and is dismissed. 31.3.2011 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss