- (1.) THE brief facts, giving rise to this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the award dated November 22, 1991 (Annexure 9), passed by the learned Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur ("the Tribunal") in Case No. C. I. T. 36/1988, are as under: The Bundi Chittorgarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank ("the petitioner-bank"), after selecting Shi Gagan Bihari Pareek (the respondent No. 2) for the post of Filed Supervisor, issued to him the appointment-letter dated May 22, 1985 (Annexure 1), offering him the said post in the pay-scale of Rs. 640-20-900-25-1000-30-1180. According to the term, contained in the appointment-letter, he was to be on probation for a period of two years, which period could be extended by the petitioner-bank in its absolute discretion, and during the period of probation, his services were liable to be terminated, without assigning any reasons, with one month's notice or one month's emoluments in lieu thereof The appointment-letter further provided that if on the expiry of the period of probation, the work, conduct etc. of the respondent No. 2, were found satisfactory and he was found medically fit, he would be confirmed in the service of the petitioner-bank. The respondent No. 2 joined the services of the petitioner-bank on June 6, 1985 Vide letter dated June 18, 1987, the period of probation of the respondent No. 2, was further extended for a period of six months, and vide letter dated July 16, 1987 (Annexure 2), his services were terminated on the ground that they were no more required. Along with Annexure-2, a cheque for Rs, 1, 140, equivalent to one month's salary of the respondent No. 2, was also given to him. The respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the appellate authority of the petitioner-bank who dismissed it and there-upon the respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute, and the following question was referred to the learned Tribunal:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). .
(2.) IN the statement of claim, the respondent No. 2 pleaded that he had completed two years' service on June 5, 1987 and the period of probation not having been extended till that date, he stood confirmed after the expiry of two years from the date of his joining and that the letter dated June 18, 1987 could not extend the period of probation, as he stood confirmed before the said letter was issued. He also pleaded that the order, terminating his services, was punitive in nature and was against the principles of natural justice, as no charge-sheet had been served on him and no enquiry was conducted by the petitioner-bank, before tenninating his services. He also alleged that the petitioner-bank had retained the services of those Field Supervisors, who had joined the service after the date of joining of the respondent No. 2 and that while terminating the services of the respondent No. 2, the petitioner-bank had not paid to him the retrenchment-compensation and, as such, the order of termination was in violation of the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" ). He also pleaded that the order (Annex. 2) had been issued due to malafides of Shri P. P. Sharma, the Chairman of the petitioner-Bank. The petitioner-bank contested the claim-petition and pleaded that the respondent No. 2 remained on 12 days' leave, without pay and, as such, his period of probation continued till June 17, 1987 and his period was extended from June 18, 1987, for a further period of six months. It was also denied that the respondent No. 2 stood confirmed after the expiry of two years. It was denied that the order (Annex. 2) was punitive in nature or any enquiry was required to be conducted, and it was pleaded that since during the period of probation, the work of the respondent No. 2 was not found satisfactory, his services were terminated in accordance with the terms of his employment. The malafides on the part of the Chairman of the petitioner-bank, were also denied. It was also pleaded that neither the respondent No. 2 was a "workman" within the meaning of the Act, nor the termination of his services could be termed i as "retrenchment" and, as such, the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25-G of the Act, were not required to be complied with. The learned Tribunal, after recording the evidence, produced by the parties and hearing their learned counsel, held that the respondent No. 2 had failed to prove any malafides on the part of the Chairman of the petitioner-bank but that although, the said respondent was on probation, the termination amounted to "retrenchment", in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case, Management of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. M. Boraiah and Anr. etc. , reported in (1984 -I- LLJ -110), and that the termination-letter (Annex. 2) having been issued without complying with the provisions of Sections 25-F and 25 g of the Act, was illegal. Consequently, vide the impugned award (Annex. 9), it has been held that the respondent No. 2 is entitled to be reinstated, with all back-wages, besides receiving Rs. 100 as costs of the proceedings. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-bank has approached this Court by filing this writ petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.;