SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the award dated 8.5.2001 whereby the reference made to the Labour Court No. 2, Jaipur has been answered in favour of the respondent-workman holding his termination as illegal and contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and directing reinstatement with 25% back wages and cost of Rs. 250.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-workman was although initially appointed on daily wage basis but vide order dated 29.11.1988 he was placed on probation for a period of six months on the fixed amount of Rs. 400/- per month in the regular cadre and it was stipulated that if he does not perform well, his services may be dispensed with. In terms of the order of appointment on probation, services of the respondent-workman were not found to be satisfactory and therefore an order came to be passed terminating his services during probation period vide order dated 19.4.1990 whereby a cheque of an amount of Rs. 1750.70 was also paid as notice and notice pay in terms of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court, while examining the said order dated 19.4.1990, has wrongly held it to be unjustified and illegal and the findings arrived at by the Labour Court are wholly perverse. It is further submitted that the Labour Court has wrongly mentioned in its award that no document was produced to show that the workman was on probation. It is submitted that Ex.1, 2 and 3 placed before the Labour Court clearly mention about the respondent-workman having been appointed on probation. Further, it is submitted that the petitioner had filed writ petition challenging the order dated 19.4.1990 before the High Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1909/1990. The order dated 19.4.1990 mentions about cheque of Rs. 1750.70 and the same was enclosed along with the order dated 19.4.1990 but the Labour Court has given an erroneous findings that the order dated 19.4.1990 was never received and there is no proof relating to the said document and the cheque having been received by the respondent-workman. Thus, there is perversity in the award and the award deserves to be set aside.;