Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
The Principal Bharathiya Vidyabhavan School - Petitioner
Versus
The Labour Court Kozhikode - Respondent
OP (LC) No. 2929 of 2013
Decided On : 02-04-2025
(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10(1)(c) - Employment dispute - The workman, a Gardener, was denied employment after probation without justification, leading to a finding of unfair labor practices by the Management - The Labour Court ruled in favor of the workman, ordering reinstatement and back wages. (Paras 3 , 7 , 19 )
(B) Employment Law - Probation - An employee on probation cannot be continued indefinitely without formal confirmation; the Management's failure to confirm or terminate the probation was deemed unfair. (Paras 16 , 18 )
Facts of the case:
The workman was appointed on probation in 2005 and terminated in 2009 without confirmation or valid reason, leading to a dispute referred to the Labour Court. The Management argued the school was not a CBSE institution at the time of termination.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court found the Management's actions constituted unfair labor practices and ordered reinstatement with back wages.
Issues: The main issues included whether the workman was denied employment unjustifiably and the applicability of CBSE rules to the Management.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Management's failure to confirm the workman's probation and the arbitrary denial of employment constituted unfair labor practices, affirming the Labour Court's findings.
Result: The original petition is disposed of as above.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners in this original petition are the Principal and the Secretary of Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan School, Kozhikode who are the Management in I.D. No.4 of 2012 before the Labour Court, Kozhikode. The 2nd respondent is the workman in the said dispute.
2. The 2nd respondent was appointed as a Gardener on probation in the school run by the Management, with effect from 01.07.2005, as per Ext. P5 order. He continued on probation without any order confirming his appointment, and his service was eventually terminated with effect from 01.04.2009 due to unsatisfactory performance.
3. The 2nd respondent raised an industrial dispute, and the Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court, Kozhikode, under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the I.D. Act’). The points referred for adjudication were as follows:
“1. Whether there is denial of employment to Sri. K.J. Prasannan, Gardener of Bharathiya Vidyabhavan School, Peruthuruti by the management of the institution?
2. If yes, what relief, Sri. K.J. Prasannan is entitled to?”
4. The 2nd respondent filed a claim statement and the Management filed written statement. It was contended by the workman that he was denied salary as per the Central Board of Secondary Education [CBSE] guidelines, and that he was not permitted to mark attendance from 01.04.2009 and thereby denied remuneration from that date. Accordingly, he prayed that he may be directed to be reinstated in the service of the Management with all attendant benefits, including continuity of service and arrears of salary.
5. The Management, in their written statement, contended that the school is not an industry and that the 2nd respondent does not fall within the purview of 'workman' as defined under the I.D. Act. It was stated that the 2nd respondent was appointed as a Gardener on probation, and since his probation was not declared, he has no lien to permanent employment under the Management.
6. Before the Labour Court, the workman was examined as WW1 and Exts. W1 to W8 were marked on his side. Ext. W8 is the copy of the guideline issued by CBSE-Chapter VII – Service Rules for employees (Ext. P4 in the original petition). The Management examined the Secretary of the School as MW1 and Exts. M1 to M6 documents were marked on their side. Ext. M1 is a copy of the appointment letter (Ext. P5 in the original petition) and Ext. M3 (Ext. P3 in the original petition) is the copy of the Composite Provisional Affiliation letter of the CBSE. Ext. M4 is the copy of the service rules applicable to the employees of Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan in the Kerala region (Ext. P6 in the original petition).
7. After hearing both sides, the Labour Court, as per Ext. P8 award, found that the school is affiliated to the CBSE, and that the conditions of service of the 2nd respondent are governed by Ext. W8, the rules and regulations applicable to CBSE schools, and that Ext. M4 service rules do not apply to the 2nd respondent. The Labour Court found that the 2nd respondent was appointed in the School as per Ext. M1, and that his probation was extended as per Ext. M2 without assigning any reason and even in the year 2009, the Management kept him as a probationer without issuing any memo of charges all along the said period and there was no reason for extending his period of probation for years together. It was also noted that no order terminating his service was issued and the workman was arbitrarily denied employment by the Management. It was held that the Management violated the rules and regulations stipulated by the CBSE for the conduct of the school affiliated to them. The Labour Court found that the actions of the Management amounted to instances of unfair labour practices and that the workman is entitled to be reinstated in the service of the Management with all attendant benefits, including arrears of wages, strictly at par with the corresponding category of employees working in Ke
An employee on probation cannot be denied employment without formal confirmation; arbitrary extension of probation constitutes unfair labor practices.
The court emphasized the need for compliance with procedural norms under the Industrial Disputes Act when denying employment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of the workman's services, who had worked for over 240 days, was contrary to the provisions contained under Section 6-N of the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which mandates 'last come first go' principle while retrenching workmen, and the e....
The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by regularizing contract workers without sufficient evidence, emphasizing the need for proper proof of employer-employee relationships under the Industrial ....
The burden of proof regarding the status of an employee as a 'workman' lies with the employee, not the employer, as per the Industrial Disputes Act.
Labour Court has decided the preliminary issue of jurisdiction raised to the effect that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction. The Labour Court has held that it has jurisdiction to entertain the refe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
