IMPORTANT POINT
The terms of appointment and service agreement required a positive act of offer and acceptance for confirmation. The court rejected the argument of deemed or automatic confirmation, emphasizing that confirmation on a regular basis was subject to an 'offer' being made by the respondent and acceptance of such offer by the appellant.

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. - The present appeal assails the order dated 10.11.2022 passed by the Ld. Single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6708/2003. It is a story of appointment, termination during the period of training and an order of reinstatement by the Labour Tribunal, followed by the impugned order which reversed the order of the Labour Tribunal and eventually upheld the termination.

2. As the devil often lies in the details, we may lay down the factual matrix of the case in brief. On 26.05.1988, the appellant was appointed as a Junior Medical Representative (Trainee) by the respondent company. The terms of appointment were sealed in a letter of appointment dated 20.05.1988 and service agreement dated 27.05.1988. The terms of appointment prescribed a mandatory training period of 12 months for the appellant. The training period was extendable for a further period of 12 months. On 10.07.1989, the training of the appellant was extended for a further period up to 26.11.1989.

3. In the aftermath of this letter, the appellant addressed a letter dated 16.08.1989 to the respondent claiming to be treated as a Medical Representative (Probationer) with effect from 26.05.1989 i.e. after the completion of one year training. The genesis of the letter lied in the contention that the training of the appellant stood automatically terminated after the completion of 12 months and he was deemed confirmed as a Medical Representative with effect from the very next day after the completion of 12 months.

4. The respondent replied to letter dated 16.08.1989 of the appellant vide its letter dated 04.10.1989, wherein the claim for automatic confirmation was rejected as baseless and the appellant was called upon by the respondent to improve his performance during the extended training period. The respondent advised the appellant to achieve the sales target and to not indulge in levelling baseless allegations against the respondent in order to cover up the inadequacies in his performance. On 11.11.1989, the training period of the appellant was further extended up to 26.05.1990. Thus, the training of the appellant was extended for a full 12 months' period to enable the appellant to achieve a satisfactory level of performance. On 01.02.1990, another order was issued to the appellant requiring him to put in adequate efforts to improve his performance. He was also advised to take the guidance of his seniors for achieving the desired results.

5. On finding the appellant's performance unsatisfactory, the respondent terminated the training of the appellant on 22.05.1990 in accordance with the appointment letter and service agreement. The respondent also sanctioned one months' stipend in lieu of the mandatory notice.

6. Thereafter, the parties participated in the conciliation proceedings on the point of termination. On failure of the conciliation proceedings, the Delhi Administration held that an industrial dispute existed between the parties and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. In the first round, the Ld. Labour Court dismissed the claim of the appellant by holding that he did not qualify as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act. Assailing the said order, the appellant approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 5611/1998. Vide order dated 24.05.2001, the writ was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Ld. Labour Court for a fresh consideration on merits.

7. Ld. Labour Court adjudicated upon the issues and held the termination of the appellant to be illegal. It held that the appellant was entitled to be treated as a Probationer Medical Representative from 26.05.1989 to 25.11.1989, and thereafter as a Medical Representative Grade-II on regular basis. Consequently, the respondent was directed to reinstate the appellant with continuity and with full back wages of a regular Medical Representative.

8. Impugning the aforesaid award of Ld. Labour Court, the respondent company approached this Court by way of the