The termination of probationers due to exceptional circumstances may not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, but compliance with statutory provisions, such as Section 25-F and Section 25-N, is essential to justify the termination.

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners-workmen are aggrieved by the common award passed by the second respondent-Additional Labour Court in I. D. Nos. 205 to 212 of 1994, dated 5-11-1997, they have filed these writ petitions before this Court challenging the same urging various legal contentions.

( 2 ) THE workmen raised an industrial dispute by presenting their separate claim petitions under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1988 (in short, 'the Act') challenging the action of the management in refusing employment to them during the month of May and June 1992, urging various legal contentions contending that, first respondent-management had appointed them. Prior to the appointment order dated 10-6-1991 copy of the appointment order vide Annexure-C they have worked as 'trainee machine Operators' in the first respondent-management for one year and thereafter they were appointed as Machine Operators in permanent posts on probation for six months. It is also further stated in the appointment orders issued to the petitioners similar to Annexure-C, after they were selected and appointed as Machine Operators, against the regular permanent vacancies posts. Prior to the appointment orders were issued the management published in the daily newspaper dated 2nd April, 1990 in Deccan Herald inviting applications from the experienced candidates to the posts referred to above along with other posts. It is contended by the workmen that the management refused employment to them during the month of May and June 1992 without any reason or rhyme whatsoever.

( 3 ) INDIVIDUALLY, the workmen submitted representation similar to the annexure-D to the management stating that they have been orally refused employment without assigning any reason and further, they have stated that they were ready and willing to report for the work in the company. In the claim statement they have contended that, action of the management is in violation of Section 2 (oo) of the Act as they have continuously worked for almost one and half years without break in service from the date of their regular appointment. Further, their appointments were made against the existing permanent vacant posts in the company. It is also contended that, non-compliance of statutory provisions of Section 25-F, clauses (a) and (b) and Section 25-N of Chapter v-B of the Act has rendered the action of the management in refusing employment to them as void ab initio in law. It is further contended that, the statutory requirements as contemplated under Chapters V-A and V-B of the Act as the same have also not been complied with, even though they are applicable to the first respondent-management. Therefore, the refusal of employment to the petitioners is bad in law. It is also alleged that the action of the management in refusing employment to the workmen is a clear case of unfair labour practice as defined under section 2 (ra) of the Act. Further, it is stated that several junior employees to the petitioners have been continued in the employment of the company. Therefore, they requested the Additional Labour Court to adjudicate their claim and pass an award of reinstatement, back wages, continuity of service and other consequential benefits.

( 4 ) THE claim of the petitioners was seriously disputed by the management by filing the counter statement vide Annexure-R1 before the labour Court. It is stated that due to the disintegration of erstwhile USSR, the company's export market suffered very much. The exports of the company drastically fell from 139. 86 lakhs in the year 1989-90 to a mere rs. [1,075] lakhs in the year 1992-93. Added to the disintegration of the ussr, the recession in the Machine Tool Industry also affected the business of the company. In page 2 unnumbered para 2 of the counter it is stated that, in the situation referred to above, the company was not able to provide the work even to the regular employees to the full capacity. The probat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document