IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.9519 of 1989 Date of Decision:- 24.02.2010 Surender Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. Indian Farmers Fertilizers and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.I.D.Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate, for the respondents. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 19.4.1989 (Annexure P-4) vide which the reference made on the basis of a demand raised by the petitioner has been answered against him, holding him not entitled to any benefit. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the findings returned by the Labour Court that the petitioner, who is a salesman, is not a workman as defined in Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be sustained. His further contention is that the services of the petitioner were regularized by the respondents and in support of this contention, he relies upon the order dated 1.10.1983 (Annexure P-2) wherein it has been mentioned that petitioner's services stand regularized. He submits that the Rules governing the service have not been complied with while terminating his services as he was a regular employee and, therefore, the order of termination as such passed by the respondent-Management cannot be C.W.P.No.9519 of 1989 -2- sustained. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent supports the Award passed by the Labour Court. He states that the salesmen have been held by various authoritative decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to be not the workmen and, thus, the issue which has been decided in favour of the Management is fully justified. His further contention is that the services of the petitioner were never regularized and as a matter of fact, his probation period was extended by the competent authority vide order dated 1.10.1983 (Annexure R-2). In the said order, the period of probation was extended by six months i.e. upto 30.3.1984. His work and conduct was assessed by the Competent Authority before the probation period came to an end and on consideration of the same, the same was not found satisfactory leading to the passing of the order of termination which was in accordance with the terms of his appointment. He, on this basis, contends that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court upheld. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The question whether a salesman would be a workman or not is not being touched by me in the present case and is left open as Issue No.3 which was as to whether the services of the petitioner were terminated in accordance with law, would not support the claim of the petitioner. The document on which the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance for stating that his services were regularized, is with regard to a communication (Annexure P-2) giving him permission to withdraw his security amount which has been submitted in the form of a fixed deposit at C.W.P.No.9519 of 1989 -3- the time the petitioner joined as salesman with the respondent-Management. No order of regularization has been placed on record and the Management has specifically denied the assertion of the petitioner that his services were ever regularized. A perusal of the appointment order (Annexure P-1) clearly shows that the petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of six months, which period could be further extended by a period or periods at the discretion of the Management. It further specified that his services were liable to be terminated during the period of probation or extended probation period, as the case may be, or at the end of such period without any notice or without assigning any reasons or compensation in lieu thereof unless a letter of confirmation has been issued by the Management on satisfactory completion of the initial or subsequent extended probation period. It is further stated that till such an order is passed by the Management confirming him in service, it would be presumed that the probationary period has been extended. There is nothing on record to suggest that the services of the petitioner were confirmed, rather memo. dated 1.10.1983 (Annexure R-2) clearly shows that the period of probation of Surender Singh-petitioner was extended for six months upto 30.3.1984. The Management was competent to assess the satisfaction of the work and conduct of the petitioner as he was under probation. On such assessment, a conclusion was reached that the same was not upto the requirement of the Management and, therefore, before the probation period expired, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 23.2.1984. It would not be out of way to mention here that one month's wages in lieu of notice period and 15 days' wages in lieu of retrenchment compensation was C.W.P.No.9519 of 1989 -4- given to the petitioner by way of bank draft No.PVX281792 dated 23.2.1984 for Rs.1,274.35 P by way of abundant caution (Annexure P-3). In this view of the matter, the provisions as contained under the Industrial Disputes Act also stood fully complied with and the termination of services of the petitioner being in terms of his appointment letter and further he having been paid the compensation as an abundant caution and one month's salary in lieu of notice, the provisions as contained under Section 25 of the Act, cannot be said to have been violated by the Management. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same stands dismissed. February 24, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE