- (1.) M/s. Estrela Batteries Ltd. engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling dry cell and batteries in Bombay organised sale of its products in U. P. through it Salesmen at Kanpur. It appointed opposite party No. 3, Om Prakash Pandey as a Salesman at Kanpur on 13th Feb., 1969 on probation for six months. In June he was warned. His services were terminated on 1-9-69. His case was taken up by Iron and Engineering Workers Union, Begumpura, Kanpur. The conciliation proceedings failed. The State, thereafter referred the dispute under S. 4K of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act to the Labour Court which gave its award on 4th Oct., 72 and directed workman's reinstatement and declared him to be entitled to full wages.
(2.) In the written statement filed before the Labour Court the petitioner, apart from justifying the discharge raised a preliminary objection that Iron and Engineering Workers Union, Begumpura, Kanpur, was not competent to raise any industrial dispute in respect of O. P. Pandey an employee of M/s.Estrela Batteries Ltd. Kanpur as M/s. Estrella Batteries Ltd. Kanpur is not an engineering unit hut an establishment as defined in S. 2 (4) of U. P. Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhiniyam 1962 and deals in the sale of electrical goods and not Engineering product.
(3.) The Labour Court found that the espousal of the workman's case by Iron & Engineering Work was proper and its withdrawal during continuance of proceeding and Sri Pandey's representation thereafter by Loha Spat Karmchari Union of which Sri Pandey become a member since 10-4-71 has no meterial bearing as once the cause had been espoused it did not cease to be industrial dispute merely due to change in representation. It repelled the preliminary objection and did not find any merit in the submission that a Salesman is not a workman. The order terminating the service was held to be bad on the ground that his probation having not been extended, Sri Pandey, stood automatically confirmed, in view of the terms of appointment. In any case as the foundations of the order was, "we, however, regret that you have not exhibited performance that we should continue you in our service any longer", which reflected on the conduct of the workman it was not innocuous and being penal in nature could not be passed without affording any opportunity to him.;