Back
2003 Supreme(Del) 367
High Court Of Delhi
MANAGEMENT OF OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY INDIA LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.III - Respondent
Civil Writ 6004 of 2001
Decided On : 04/22/2003
Jagat Arora, SANJAY GHOSH
Headnote:Industrial Disputes - Workman — Probationer — Termination of services — Petitioner engaged as a trainee — Interview board of the management assessing the aptitude of him and submitting its report according to which performance of him found to be not satisfactory and he was given time to improve his performance — In second assessment also the petitioner found to be not up to the standard — Petitioner not a workman under Section 2 (s) — Termination of services not invalid — Order of Industrial Tribunal reinstating petitioner with full back wages quashed — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(s).
Held :
The petitioner herein was engaged as a trainee and in the said letter of engagement itself which is the contract it was specifically stated that his performance would be observed and that only on satisfactory completion of the training his contract period would be extended for another two years and thereafter on successful completion of the training and in the event of a vacancy being available he would be considered for a suitable employment. Necessarily, thereforee, his performance was assessed by the petitioner during the aforesaid training period of initial twelve months but his performance was not found satisfactory. The same was also brought to his notice and he was asked to improve his performance so as to enable him to avail of the further extension of the training for two years. Thereafter his performance was again assessed and an interview was held and even in the same his performance was not good and thereforee the petitioner decided to discontinue the contract of training in terms of Clause 2 of the contract. In my considered opinion the aforesaid order of disengagement cannot be termed as stigmatic as held by the Industrial Tribunal.
( 1 ) THE present writ petition arises out of the award passed by the Industrial No. III, Delhi, in I. D. Case No. 276/89. By the aforesaid award passed on April 4, 2001 the Industrial Tribunal answered the reference made to it in favour of the respondent No. 2-workmen holding that the order passed against the workman by the management was by way of termination of his services and the same was illegal and unjustified with a further direction that the workman be reinstated in service with full back wages with continuity of service. Even a cost of litigation of Rs. 1,500/- was imposed against the management. The operation of the impugned award was stayed by this Court while issuing notice on the writ petition with a condition that the management would deposit the awarded amount in this Court. Pursuant to the said order, the awarded amount is lying deposited in this Court.
( 2 ) PURSUANT to an application filed by the respondent No. 2 dated February 16, 1987 the petitioner sent a letter to him on June 1, 1987 offering him to undergo training as a Field/trade Trainee in the petitioner organisation under the terms and conditions specifically mentioned in the said letter. By letter dated August 26, 1988 the respondent No. 2 was informed by the petitioner that the assessment of his training and the result of the interview held on August 26, 1988 before the Board of Confirmation indicated that his performance was poor and accordingly the training period of the respondent No. 2 could not be extended as he did not have an aptitude for the training in the trade of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 was also informed that the petitioner had decided to discontinue his contract of training with effect from August 31, 1988 and that as per clause 2 of the contract of training his training could be terminated without notice and without assigning any reason. Being aggrieved by the said order the respondent No. 2 raised a dispute and on the basis of the said dispute the competent authority referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal No. III on the following terms of reference:-
"whether the termination of the services of Sh. Mahant Ram is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?"on receipt of the aforesaid reference the Industrial Tribunal received evidence adduced by the parties and thereafter passed the aforesaid award which is under challenge in this writ petition.
( 3 ) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner assailed the findings and the conclusions of the Industrial Tribunal contending that the said findings and conclusions are illegal, without jurisdiction and are in complete disregard to the settled position of law. It was submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal erred in law and also in fact in holding that the respondent No. 2 was a workman as the said respondent No. 2 was appointed only as a trainee and that a trainee would never come within the ambit of the definition of `workman . It was also submitted by him that the respondent No. 2 having received all the pecuniary benefits pursuant to the aforesaid order in full and final settlement of his claim, there was no scope for raising any dispute by the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the Tribunal erred in law and also in fact in holding that the receipt executed by the respondent No. 2 was not admissible in evidence. The next contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the award of the Industrial Tribunal holding that the order of disengagement is stigmatic is also bad and the same is in violation of the settled position of law.
( 4 ) COUNSEL appearing for respondent No. 2, however, supported the findings and the conclusions contending inter alia that no interference is called for as against the aforesaid findings, the same being findings of fact. In the light of the aforesaid submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties I have considered th
