CWP No.7975 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7975 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 23-02-2011 Vikas ....Petitioner VERSUS Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. Sandeep Singal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana Mr. Ramesh Hooda, Advocate for respondent no.3. MAHESH GROVER, J The petitioner has impugned the award of the Labour Court before whom he had claimed a reference under Section 10(1)(c ) of the Industrial Disputes Act. His grievance was that he was appointed as Sweeper on compassionate grounds and clause 4 of the letter of appointment contemplates that he would be on probation for a period of two years which period is likely to be extended by one year at the discretion of the authority. The petitioner's services were terminated on the expiry of two years with an order simpliciter i.e his services are dispensed with. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which was also declined. He however then claimed reference before the Labour Court without disclosing this fact which answered the reference against the petitioner. CWP No.7975 of 2010 (O&M) 2 The stand of the respondents is that they have considered the conduct of the petitioner and his service record for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98 is as below:- “i) 1996-97 Below average with adverse remarks as under:- Amenability to discipline No Honesty and conduct No Punctuality and regularity No Devotion to duty No Result – Remains absent does not take interest in work. ii) 1997-98 Average Conduct & Character Average Punctuality and regularity Average Amenability to discipline Average Devotion to duty Average Behaviour & obedience Average Attitude towards other Average caste & communities” Apart from this, they have also considered the fact that the petitioner had remained absent from duty for a total period of 19 days which period was specified before the Labour Court as well. It was thus contended that the entire record of the petitioner was considered at the time of dispensing with his services and since he had not completed the probation period satisfactorily his services were dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the first report of employer, the petitioner was assessed as below average but he improved his work and conduct and he was assessed as average for the subsequent year and according to the terms of appointment, his period of CWP No.7975 of 2010 (O&M) 3 probation can be extended to another period of one year. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is governed by the terms of his employment which contemplates that the services can be dispensed with in the eventuality of his not satisfying his employer during the period of probation of two years. The record of the petitioner as aforesaid suggests that he is an employee with a casual approach who has not cared to observe the basic requisite of an employment. The employer was thus very well within his rights to evaluate the conduct of the petitioner as also the worth of the employee during this period of probation and since the petitioner did not conduct himself properly, they were very will within their rights to terminate the services of the petitioner. The Labour Court has thus rightly appreciated the controversy before it and finding no merit in the instant writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. February 23, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge