- (1.) THE petitioner who is Chief Personnel Manager now designated as Chief Manager, Indian Relation and Human Resources, Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. , has moved this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition challenging the impugned order dated January 15,1986 of the Authority constituted under the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Authority') whereby, the Authority had directed reinstatement in services of the petitioner-company of respondent No. 1 with backwages w. e. f. the date of termination i. e. August 8,1984 with all consequential benefits on the grounds inter alia that the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a probationer and since during the probationary period, his services were not found satisfactory, no reason was required to be assigned by the Management of the petitioner-Company before terminating his services.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner-Company is a private limited company having its registered office at Bombay and its retail shops all over India and also at Sriganganagar in Rajasthan and hence is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Respondent No. 1 was given appointment in terms of the order dated December 6, 1983 as a Helper in the Company w. e. f. December 1, 1983 on probation basis initially for a period of 3 months to start with. The terms and conditions of the service were duly incorporated in the appointment order itself vide Exh. 1 to the writ petition. In Clause (1) of the appointment the Respondent No. 1 was on probation initially for a period of 3 months w. e. f. the date of appointment. During the said period, the services of the said employee could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever and without notice or payment in lieu of such notice. The period of probation could be extended at the discretion of the management but, in any case the said extension was not to exceed for a period beyond six months as reckoned w. e. f. the date of appointment. The initial salary of Respondent No. 1 was fixed at Rs. 175/-per month besides dearness allowance and other allowances as admissible to other employees of the petitioner-Company. The appointment of the Respondent No. 1 was to be strictly governed by the Standing Orders and the rules as applicable to the retail outlets of the petitioner-Company. The initial period of probation of Respondent No. 1 of 3 months w. e. f. December 6, 1983 had come to an end on February 29, 1984 which was further extended by another 3 months w. e. f. March 1, 1984 to May 3,1984 vide Exh. 2 on the record. Since the services of the said respondent were not found satisfactory, the petitioner-company did not prefer to extend his probationary period beyond six months as envisaged under the Rules and his services were terminated vide order dated July 16, 1984 vide Exh. 3 on the record. The perusal of the said document which is a letter addressed to the Respondent No. 1 by the Chief Personnel Manager of the petitioner company indicates that the performance of the said employee was under constant watch and observance of the management and since his services were not of the requisite standards inspite of having been given one chance to improve his services notwithstanding one extension already granted, consequently, his services stood terminated w. e. f. August 1, 1984 and he was directed to be relieved from his duties accordingly.
(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order of termination, the Respondent No. 1 challenged the impugned-order of termination by filing the claim petition under Section 28-A of the Rajasthan Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1958') before the Authority constituted under the said Act. The questions which were formulated by the Authority for consideration, are as under- (1) Whether the management of the petitioner-company was justified in terminating the services of the Respondent No. 1 without prior intimation or notice and without having been served at least one month's prior notice and whether such termination tantamounts to violation of Section 28-A of the Act ? (2) if, the termination is held illegal then, to what relief Respondent No. 1 shall be entitled as against the petitioner-Company?;