MARY KUTTY Vs. HINDUSTHAN TIMES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner was appointed by the respondent as a Telex Printer Operator on a salary of rs. 600/-, as on 10. 10. 1984. She was designated as a part time Telex Printer Operator at bangalore, though she was doing full time work of typing, telephone, operator, Clerical and cutting and filing of news paper work. She continued to discharge her duties and the respondent management had changed her designation as a trainee-Clerk with additional responsibilities. This was a ruse adopted by the management in order to circumvent the legal provisions of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said workman even after change of designation was continued to be treated as a trainee and the period of appointment as a trainee was extended from time to time. The last of such extension was by a letter dated 12. 1. 1990 as at Ex. M. 5, extending the training period from 2. 1. 1990 to 31. 5. 1990. By a letter Ex. M. 8, the petitioner was informed that if she does not improve her performance and behaviour, she would be automatically removed from 30. 11. 1990. Thereafter by issuing Ex. M-9, she was terminated whereunder, the respondent management had stated as follows:

(2.) SMT. Shwetha Anand, appearing for the petitioner would submit that it is not disputed that though the petitioner was discharging the work of a full time employee, she has been designated as a trainee and that her training period was extended from time to time. The petitioner had borne this treatment out of sheer desperation as she did not have another alternative and she is aggrieved even if her status is taken as a trainee. The fact that the order of designation is per se stigmatic would render the order illegal. The Labour Court was therefore in error in proceeding to hold that there is no violation or contravention of the provisions of the industrial Disputes Act, in the facts and circumstances. In that the Labour Court had only considered whether the terms of appointment considered the status of the petitioner as being, that of a trainee and therefore holding that the management was in order in proceeding to terminate the services of the petitioner, after the end of such training period, even though the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 and had continued discharging full time duties till the year 1990 when she was unceremoniously dismissed by the stigmatic order referred to herein above. The counsel would submit that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of wasim Beg Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1291) has succinctly laid down the legal proposition insofar as a probationer is concerned, as spelt at paragraphs 15 and 16 thereof, which read as follows:

(3.) THE Counsel appearing for the respondent has significantly remained absent, even though the matter was called on several occasions namely 10. 3. 2006, when the counsel for the petitioner was heard for the first time. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 15. 3. 2006 where again the Counsel for the respondent remained absent and it was posted on 17. 3. 2006 and finally to this day. The Counsel for the Petitioner has recapitulated the legal position. It is unfortunate that the counsel for the respondent has completely ignored the case being listed for final hearing from time to time.