GIOVANOLA-BINNY LIMITED PALLURUTHY COCHIN Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CALICUT
LAWS(KER)-1968-11-11
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Decided on November 05,1968

GIOVANOLA-BINNY LIMITED, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN Appellant
VERSUS
INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CALICUT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against an award passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Calicut in I. D. No. 19 of 1965 setting aside the order passed by the petitioner company discharging from their service the 2nd respondent who was a production worker on probation and ordering his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
(2.) THE award in question was passed by the Tribunal on a petition preferred before it by the 2nd respondent under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947. The 2nd respondent had been appointed by the management as a production worker as per order dated 8-1-1964 (M-2 ). It was expressly stipulated in that order that the appointee was to be on probation for one year with effect from 1-11964 and that if his work and conduct were found to be satisfactory he will be confirmed in his appointment at the end of the probationary period. On 19-1-1965 the management terminated his services as per Ext. W. 2 order by which the 2nd respondent was informed that it had been decided not to confirm his appointment. An industrial dispute, namely I. D. No. 74 of 1964, was pending adjudication at that time before the Industrial Tribunal. That dispute had been raised at the instance of certain workmen of the company concerning certain terms and conditions of their service. The 2nd respondent put in the petition under Section 33-A of the Industrial Disputes Act on the allegation that the termination of his services under Est. W-2 order during the pendency of I. D. 74/64 amounted to a violation of the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act
(3.) THE management contended before the Tribunal that the discharge of the probationer after the completion of his period of probation on the ground that be was considered unsuitable for confirmation would not amount to an alteration of the conditions of his service to his prejudice so as to constitute a violation of section 33 of the Act and that therefore the complaint filed under Section 33-A was totally misconceived and devoid of merit.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.