KUMAR K L Vs. V P PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award of Labour Court rejecting his demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The Reference was dismissed on 19.5.1995.

(2.) The petitioner was employed with Respondent No.2 as a Technician for more than a year. It is the petitioner's case that when he was appointed by Respondent NO.2, his signatures were obtained on blank letterheads of Respondent No.2 and on blank vouchers and papers. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated w.e.f. 31.12.1987. He, therefore, raised an industrial dispute and obtained a Reference for adjudication by the Labour Court. The dispute referred was one between the Respondent No.2 and the Petitioner and was registered as Reference (IDA) No.10 of 1988. The workman filed his statement of claim contending that his services had been terminated illegally and in contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. It was also pleaded that he had completed one year of continuous service and, therefore, was entitled to be paid retrenchment compensation before his services were terminated. No chargesheet had been issued to him.

(3.) In its written statement, Respondent No.2 contended that the petitioner was not a workman as defined under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was also pleaded that the petitioner had been appointed on probation for six months and his services were terminated after the expiry of the period of probation. Evidence was led on behalf of both the parties. The petitioner tried to establish in his evidence that he was employed with Respondent No.2 as a technician and that he was employed with the sister concern of Respondent No.2 i.e. M/s.DOWELL ELEKTRO WERKE, Respondent No.2 herein from 14.1.1987. In his cross-examination, he has stated that from 1978 to 1987, he worked with two other companies. He has further stated that he has worked with DOWELL ELEKTRO WERKE (for short, hereinafter referred to as "Dowell") for about six months and thereafter, his services were transferred to Ideal Elektro Werke, Respondent No.2 herein. The petitioner admitted his signature on his application for employment dated 7.3.1987. According to him, the name of Respondent No.2 company was changed from Dowell Elektro Werke to Ideal Elektro Werke and because of this he had been in continuous service as he had completed more than 240 days, considering the services that he rendered with Dowell and Ideal.