Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the employer, U.P. Financial Corporation, which is Petitioner in the first writ petition and contesting Respondent in the second writ petition and Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned Counsel assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar, learned Counsel for Pankaj Chaturvedi, the workman who is Petitioner in the second writ petition and contesting Respondent in the first writ petition. First Writ Petition:
(2.) THIS writ petition is directed against the award dated 27.02.1999 given by Presiding Officer (II), U.P. Kanpur in Adjudication Case No. 100 of 1995. The matter which was referred to the labour court was as to whether the action of employer U.P. Financial Corporation terminating the services of its workman/ librarian Sri Pankaj Chaturvedi w.e.f. 23.03.1991 was just and valid or not. The labour court held that the workman was appointed on 11.08.1989 on six months probation which was extended uptil 10.02.1991, however after 10.02.1991, probation period was not extended and Petitioner was permitted to work for about one and a half month, i.e. until 22/23.04.1991, hence he became a workman and his retrenchment without payment of any retrenchment compensation or without any domestic enquiry was illegal. However, labour court further held that dispute was raised in the year 1995 by the workman and he must be doing some work also meanwhile, hence reinstatement with 25% back wages was directed. Relevant extracts of the Regulations have been annexed as Annexure -VIII to the first writ petition (The U.P. Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1961). Regulations 15 to 17 under Section 11 of the Regulations deal with probation. Under Regulation 17, it is mentioned as follows: The period of probation of an employee may be extended at the discretion of the Managing Director but in No. case shall the total period of probation exceed three years. Under Regulations, there is No. such provision that after the expiry of initial or subsequently extended period of probation, the employee shall stand automatically confirmed. The maximum period of probation could be three years which had not expired until the termination of services of the workman concerned. If maximum period of probation i.e. three years, had expired and the workman concerned had not been removed then the argument of automatic confirmation could carry some force. In the Regulations, neither there is anything express nor implied provision that if probation period is not extended and if within three years, the employee is not at once discharged on expiry of probation period, he may be deemed to have been confirmed. Accordingly, the impugned award cannot be sustained. Second Writ Petition:
(3.) SECOND writ petition has been filed by the workman against the same award which has been challenged by the employer through first writ petition. The grievance of the workman is that the labour court instead of 25% back wages should have awarded full back wages. Firstly, the labour court gave cogent reasons particularly of delay in denying full back wages and secondly, the direction for reinstatement with full back wages has already been set aside through earlier part of this judgment.;