- (1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 16.09.1993 (Annexure P2) whereby the Labour Court, Hisar, came to the conclusion that the services of the workman were rightly terminated and the said action was justified and it was held that he was not entitled for any relief. A perusal of the record of the writ petition would go on to show that the petitioner-workman was appointed as Chokidar, on probation for one year, with the respondent-school on 30.11.1984 and his services were allegedly terminated on 21.11.1987 and accordingly, it was claimed that there was violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act')
(2.) The stand of the Management was that the worker was appointed as Chokidar for a period of one year and as per the terms of the appointment letter, his probation period could be extended for a further period of one year, as decided by the competent authorities. The probation period was extended on 20.11.1985 and it was lastly extended vide order dated 01.02.1987. The work of the workman was not satisfactory as he remained absent and his services were terminated only in accordance with the terms of the contract of his appointment. The Management appended the letter dated 20.11.1985 and 01.02.1987 on record as Exhibits M-1/A and M-3 respectively and on the basis of the said evidence, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the probation period was extended upto 01.12.1987 and his services were dispensed with during the period of probation and before the completion of the probation period and it was also noticed that On 29.08.1985 (Exhibit M-4) and 31.03.1986 (Exhibit M-2), explanation had been called for and the worker had submitted his explanation as Exhibits M-6 and M-1. Accordingly, it was held that the workman had no right to the post as he was still on probation and the order of termination was innocuous and cast no stigma. Accordingly, it was held that the termination was in accordance with the terms of his appointment letter and it was justified and the workman was held not entitled for any relief.
(3.) Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the workman, has vehemently submitted that once the workman had completed 240 days of service, then the mandatory conditions of notice, notice regarding pay and compensation, have not been complied with and the termination could be held to be illegal and workman was entitled for reinstatement. He has placed reliance upon judgment of Apex Court in Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. M. Boraiah & another, 1984 1 SCC 244and judgment of this Court in ., Ambala through its The Ambala Central Co-operative Bank Ltd, Managing Director v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala & another, 1990 98 PunLR 282.;