R.R.K. Trivedi, J. - (1.) Petitioner's case is that the impugned award is liable to be quashed as Tribunal has failed to consider the implication of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 was a probationer and for his unsatisfactory work, he could be discharged from the service which could not attract provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Tribunal is said to have acted beyond his jurisdiction. It is further contended that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to proceed with the case, same was to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 29 of the Act. The industrial Tribunal ceased to have its jurisdiction w.e.f. May 15, 1987 on the matter. The respondent No. 2 had no right to hold the post. His services could be terminated without any notice. The respondent No. 2 is not entitled to get any protection under the Constitution or under the Industrial Disputes Act. Termination of service of respondent No. 2 was not due to his misconduct but was only for his unsatisfactory work.
(2.) Respondent No. 2 was said to have been appointed on probation on May 15, 1987 as T-1 (Laboratory Assistant) at the petitioner's institution. Respondent No. 2's period of probation was extended by one year. His work and conduct was not found satisfactory. Hence, his services were terminated on May 12, 1981. Of course, the respondent No. 2 is said to have raised a dispute under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act which was referred for adjudication by the Central Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur on January 2, 1987. Petitioner filed his written statement before the Tribunal in pursuance of the summons. Respondent No. 2 has stated that he was not informed that his period of probation was extended. He would be deemed to have been confirmed after the expiry of the period of probation. He was a workman. Neither he was paid one month's pay nor retrenchment compensation before the issuance of the impugned order. Service Rules applicable to him were not complied with, therefore, the termination of service was illegal. He has also challenged the recording of adverse remarks against him, which according to him, was outcome of personal bias and prejudice by Dr. M.C. Prasad under whom he was working. Before the Tribunal, petitioner has denied all these charges. Petitioner made an attempt before the Tribunal that conduct and work of respondent No. 2 was not satisfactory during the period of probation, therefore, his period of probation was extended and after that his services were terminated. However, Tribunal issued an award against the petitioner on 31st of May, 1988 which was published on 17th June, 1988 and the petitioner is said to have received the copy of the award on 29th September, 1988.
(3.) It is further submitted that Government of India had issued a notification under Section 14 (2) dated April 20, 1987 which conferred jurisdiction on the Central Administrative Tribunal in respect of disputes relating to service matters of I.C.A.R. All the cases pending on that day before the Industrial Tribunal were liable to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 29 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, therefore, the award was without jurisdiction. As a probationer, respondent No. 2 has no right to the post, therefore, award is bad.;