Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J. : This appeal is brought, by special leave, against the award of the Labour Court, Orissa, dated May 24, 1963, in Industrial Dispute No. 5 of 1962, published in the Orissa Gazette, dated June 14, 1963.

2. The respondent - Miss Santi Patnaik - took her degree in Master of Arts (Political Science) in 1961. At that time, Major General Pratap Narain was the General Manager of Utkal Machinery Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Management ). On December 9, 1961, Major General Pratap Narain appointed the respondent as his Secretary on a monthly salary of Rs. 400. She was thereafter transferred to the Personnel Department of the Company as an Assistant. It appears that Shri A. L. Sarin joined as Personnel Officer on January 2, 1962. The respondent alleges that on April 30, 1962, she was given notice for termination of her service. On her representation she was informed on May 30, 1962 that the decision of the management to dispense with her service was final. The allegation of the respondent is that taking advantage of her subordinate official position Mr. Sarin misbehaved with her to which she offered resistance. The respondent asserted that the termination of her service was improper, mala fide and an act of victimisation. The respondent prayed that the order of termination should be set aside and she should be reinstated with full arrears of pay. The case of the respondent was taken up by the Utkal Machinery Mazdoor Sangha and on December 18, 1962, the Government of Orissa referred the following dispute for adjudication to the Labour Court :

"Whether the termination of services of Miss S. Patnaik by the management of Messrs Utkal Machinery Limited, Kansabahal is legal and justified? If not, what relief she is entitled to?"

3. The case of the management before the Labour Court was that Miss Patnaik was appointed on probation for a period of 6 months on a salary of Rs. 400 p.m. on the recommendation of the then Chief Minister of Orissa, Sri B. Patnaik who suggested to the management that the respondent may be put "in the staff with a start of Rs. 350 or Rs. 400 with living accommodation." The management alleged that the service of the respondent was terminated during the probation period because of her unsatisfactory work and there was no question of victimisation or mala fide motive in the termination of the respondent s service. The management contended that it had absolute discretion to assess the work of the respondent during the period of probation and to terminate her services on the ground of unsatisfactory work. The Labour Court did not accept the contention of the management and held that there was no probationary period fixed for the respondent and the termination of her services by the management was mala fide, illegal and unjustified and the management should pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 9,600 as compensation in lien of her reinstatement.

4. The first question pressed on behalf of the appellant is that the Labour Court was wrong in rejecting the contention of the management that the respondent was appointed to serve for a period of 6 months on probation upto June 9, 1962. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant pointed out that there was an endorsement at the bottom of the application by the respondent, dated January 9, 1962 to the effect that she was appointed on a salary of Rs. 400 p.m. on probation for 6 months. The endorsement is in the handwriting of Major General Pratap Narain and both he and Vogel-another General Manager - have signed it. The Labour Court has examined the evidence on this point and found that no communication was sent to the respondent on the basis of the endorsement - Ex. A-1. The management relied on a letter - Ex. G - dated January 17, 1962 alleged to have been sent to the respondent. This letter states that the appointment was on probation for 6 months which may be extended at the discretion of the management and "during probationary period the services of the re