Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1774
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vipin Sanghi, J.
D.T.C. - Appellant
Versus
Prem Nath & Ors.Through Lr’s. - Resopndent
W.P.(C) 5785/2001 & CM No.9917/2001
Decided On : 09-01-2013
Through:Mr. Tarun Sharma, Advocate
The management can terminate a probationer's services based on their conduct and performance, and such termination is not stigmatic if justified.
Headnote:
Termination - Industrial Disputes Act - 25F, G, H - Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952 - State of Punjab vs. Bakshish Singh, JT1998(7)SC172/AIR 1999 SC 2626 - DTC vs. Sardar Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 574
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's services were terminated during probation due to frequent unauthorized leave and involvement in a case of rash and negligent driving. The Labour Court allowed the respondent's claim, but the High Court quashed the award.
Finding of the Court:
The termination during probation was not punitive, and the management had valid reasons based on the respondent's conduct and performance. The termination did not cast a stigma on the respondent.
Issues: Validity of termination during probation, consideration of past conduct and performance, applicability of Industrial Disputes Act and Delhi Road Transport Authority Regulations.
Ratio Decidendi: The management is entitled to assess the efficiency, regularity, and conduct of a probationer when deciding whether to continue their services. Termination during probation is not stigmatic if based on valid reasons.
Final Decision: The High Court quashed the Labour Court's award, holding that the termination during probation was justified.
Vipin Sanghi, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner assails the award dated 13.07.2000 passed by Sh. O.P. Gupta, Presiding Officer, Labour Court IX, Tis Hazari Courts, Dellhi in ID No.184/89, 96/95. The said claim arose out of a reference made by the Government vide Notification No.F.24(904)/89-Lab./8359-64 dated 10.03.1989, terms whereof read as follows:
“Whether the termination of services of Sh. Prem Nath is illegal and/or unjustified, and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?”
2. The original respondent/workman Prem Nath filed his statement of claim, wherein he claimed that he was appointed as Driver on daily wages w.e.f. 08.08.1984. He was brought on monthly rate of pay vide office order dated 01.05.1985. After expiry of more than one year, the management extended his probation vide letter dated 13.08.1986.
3. The case of the respondent/workman was that his services were terminated vide communication dated 02.02.1987 and claimed that the same was punitive. The respondent claimed that a charge sheet was issued to him on 01.09.1986, alleging that on 29.07.1986 while performing duty on Bus No.8490 he parked the same wrongly at Jheel and misbehaved with the supervisor on duty and thereby committed an act of insubordination and disobedience. The respondent claimed that he had submitted his reply to the said charge sheet. However, this enquiry was not taken any further and the termination letter was issued by placing reliance on clause 9(a)(i) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952. The respondent claimed that no enquiry was held and the charge sheet which was made the foundation for passing the impugned order dated 02.02.1987. Consequently, it was claimed that the order of termination was in violation of section 25F, G, H of the Industrial Disputes Act.
4. The petitioner filed its written statement. Apart from raising preliminary objection to the maintainability of the said claim petition, the petitioner also pleaded that the workman was appointed on probation for one year w.e.f. 08.02.1985 which was extendable upto two years. Vide memo dated 13.08.1986, the same was extended for six months upto 07.02.1987, along with an advice to improve his attendance. A copy of the said memo extending probation of the respondent dated 11.06.1986 has been placed on record along with the petitioners rejoinder.
5. The petitioner further pleaded that the respondent availed of 42 days leave without pay during the extended period of probation. Prior to extension, the respondent had availed of 37 days leave without pay. It would, therefore, be seen that out of a period of about six months, for which the probation was extended on 13.08.1986, the respondent was on leave without pay for nearly 1 ½ months. The petitioner also pleaded that a case of accident under section 279/337 IPC dated 22.04.1985 was pending in which the accident committee of the petitioner had found the respondent at fault. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner decided to terminate the services of the respondent, who was admittedly on probation, by resort to clause 9(a)(i).
6. The industrial adjudicator has allowed the respondents claim and, if I may so, the reasoning adopted by him is not only contradictory but borders on perversity. Admittedly, the charge sheet issued by the petitioner to the respondent was not taken to its logical conclusion. However, the conduct of the respondent in being on frequent leave was itself sufficient to give a reason to the petitioner to discontinue the respondents probation.
7. The reliance placed by the Labour Court on State of Punjab vs. Bakshish Singh, JT1998(7)SC172/AIR 1999 SC 2626 appears to be misplaced in view of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in DTC vs. Sardar Singh, (2004) 7 SCC 574,wherein the Supreme Court has, on the basis of the applicable regulations held that absence without obtaining prior leave tantamount to m
