The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a proper inquiry and adherence to principles of natural justice before terminating a worker, especially during the probation period.

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.

This order will dispose of CWP No. 2816 of 2013 and CWP 2818 of 2013 as similar facts and law points are involved in both these cases. For convenience, the facts are culled out from CWP No. 2816 of 2013. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the award dated 18.4.2011 (P-1) passed by the Labour Court, Panipat, in reference No. 238 of 2002 has been called in question.

2. The order of termination dated 10.2.2001 has been held bad on account of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”) inasmuch as the workman was not put to notice of termination, nor retrenchment compensation was paid and one month's pay in lieu of notice remained unpaid. There is also no dispute that the workman had completed 240 days of continuous service in the twelve calendar months preceding the date of termination.

3. The further necessary facts for adjudication of this matter as pleaded by the workman are that he was appointed on 14.7.1999 by the petitioner-management in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 and he worked upto 10.2.2001. The case of the petitioner-management is that the workman was appointed as Chowkidar on temporary/ad-hoc basis on 28.1.2000. Thereafter, a selection committee was constituted to make recommendation for regular appointment to the post of Chowkidar. The name of Ramphal was recommended for regular appointment. Appointment order dated 29.5.2000 followed. The workman joined services as Chowkidar on 1.6.2000. A copy of the appointment letter dated 29.5.2000 has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Condition No. 2 of the appointment letter is worded thus:

2. You will be on probation for a period of one year after completion of probation period your services will be regularized automatically.

In terms of the letter of appointment, the probation period would have come to an end on 30.4.2001. Condition No. 3 of the appointment letter reads thus:

3. The appointment will be terminated on one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu thereof on either side and after the confirmation, whenever effected, three months notice or three months salary in lieu thereof will be required on either side.

About 2 months and 20 days short of completion of probation period which would have led to automatic regularization, Ramphal was dished out a termination order dated 20.2.2011 (P-4) which reads as follows:

To

Sh. Ram Phal

Chowkidar

Mahila Ayurvedical College,

Khanpur Kalan

Subject: Termination of Service

You were absent from duty on tomorrow night which is against the Service Rules. It was your duty to take care-of security of girl students but you did not perform your duty. It is against the principles of Institution.

Many complaints have been received from girl students against you. Keeping in view your negligence in maintaining security of girl students, your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. You may hand over your charge to Sh. Bharat Singh.

Sd/- President

Mahasabha Kanya Gurukul

Khanpur Kalan,

Sonepat.

(emphasis added)

4. The order discloses foundation of misconduct based on complaints received from girl students of negligence in maintaining security. It is not the case of the management that any fact finding or regular inquiry was held into the complaints of misconduct against the workman including that of absence from duty on a single night. The defence of the management is that Ramphal could have been dealt with in terms of the appointment order. Admittedly, Ramphal was a regular direct recruit. He had a right to prove his worth till the end of period of probation under normal circumstances. His work and conduct would have remained under scrutiny upto 30.4.2001. In The Management of the Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. Madurai Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and Another, AIR 1964 SC 806 the Supreme Court held:

It appears clear to us that without anything more an appointment on probation f