UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the award of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh whereby the workman-respondent was directed to be reinstated with all the attendant benefits of continuous service and half back wages.

(2.) PARAMJIT Singh-respondent (hereinafter called 'the workman') was appointed as Inspector with effect from June 1, 1979 on a consolidated allowance of Rs. 500/- per month. He was put on probation for a period of 12 months during which he was required to produce a premium of atleast Rs. 75000/- to be eligible for promotion as Probationary Inspector Grade-I failing which his probation could be extended by another 12 months and also if the management deemed it necessary in view of his performance. He continued working till November 26, 1988 when his services were terminated without assigning any reason. The workman raised an industrial dispute regarding his termination which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh for adjudication under Section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act' ). The main plank of attack by the workman was that his services had been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25f inasmuch as he had not been paid retrenchment compensation though he has put in more than 240 days of service. The management, on the other hand, questioned the jurisdiction of the Tribunal alleging that Paramjit Singh was not a 'workman' within the meaning of the Act and having failed in a civil court where he sought to prevent his termination, he could not claim any relief in proceedings under the Act. It was also asserted that the management had acted well within its rights in terminating his services during the probationary period because of his poor and unsatisfactory performance. The pleadings of the parties gave rise to the following issues. 1. Whether the claimant petitioner is not a workman and as such whether the provisions of I. D. Act do not apply to the instant case? OPR. 2. Whether the claimant petitioner is estopped as alleged in para No. 3 of the preliminary objection of the written statement? OPR

(3.) THE management contended before the Tribunal that Shri Paramjit Singh was not a workman within the meaning of the Act. This issue was not seriously pressed before the Tribunal and, therefore it need not detain us. Another objection raised was that the workman had filed a suit in a Civil Court and having failed therein he could not continue with the present proceedings under the Act. It is true that a suit was filed by the Workman but it was for an injunction seeking to restrain the management from terminating his services. Before the injunction could be issued the management produced before the Civil Court the order of termination. That rendered the suit infructuous and the same was accordingly dismissed. Such a dismissal of the suit cannot, in my opinion, stand in the way of the workman from raising an industrial dispute challenging his termination. I find no infirmity in the award impugned in this petition.