The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a probationer's employment during the probation period is permissible under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the decision may not be considered stigmatic if it is based on the probationer's conduct and within the terms of appointment.

Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, J.

This judgment shall dispose of CWP Nos. 27720 of 2013 and 4132 of 2014, involving common questions of facts and law. However, to dictate order, facts have been taken from CWP No. 27720 of 2013 titled Jitender Kumar v. Presiding Officer, industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-I, Gurgaon & another. The petitioner-workman is aggrieved against the award dated 7.6.2013 (Annexure P13) whereby the Labour Court, Gurgaon has decided the reference against the workman and in favour of the Management, by holding that he was a probationer and was discharged from service during the period of probation and therefore, the said order could not be held to be stigmatic.

2. A perusal of the paper book would go on to show that the petitioner was appointed initially on 12.01.2001, after 2 years of training. As per the letter of appointment (Annexure P1), he was to be on probation for a period of 6 months which was liable to be extended at the sole discretion of the Management and he was deemed to be on probation unless confirmed in writing. The period of probation was, thereafter, extended for 3 months on 12.07.2001 till 11.10.2001 (Annexure R6), after advising him to be more careful in future by considering his appraisal report and asked him to improve his work and conduct. Thereafter, on 09.10.2001 (Annexure P5), the respondent-Management discharged him by holding that his work and conduct was not found upto the expectation of the Management. Compensation and notice of pay, along with the letter of termination of service was also sent to him and the discharge was after the Management had reviewed the working of the probationers on 08.10.2001 (Annexure P8) wherein it was noticed that the said probationers were remaining absent and were adversely affecting the working of the Company and were doing illegal activities at the gate of the Company and were affecting the industrial peace of the Company. The matter was, thereafter, referred to the Labour Court on account of the demand notice dated 21.01.2002 (Annexure P10), issued by the petitioner-workman u/s 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the 'Act').

3. The Management, in its written statement, took the plea that the reference was without jurisdiction and since he had joined service on probation and during the probation period, after assessing the work, he was discharged. In order to substantiate his allegations, the petitioner-workman examined himself as PW4 and also examined Babu Lal as P.W. 1, Attar Singh as PW2 and Sandeep Kumari as PW3. One Ramesh Kumar from the Labour Commissioner's office at Chandigarh was also examined as PW5. The plea of the workman that due to his taking part in agitation against the Management, led to his termination of service and therefore, the order was stigmatic, was rejected while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences and anr, (2002) 1 SCC 520 and Progressive Education Society and Another Vs. Rajendra and Another, (2008) 3 SCC 310 It was found that the probation had been extended upto 11.10.2001 and he had absented from work from 01.08.2001 and therefore, failed to report for duty and he was ultimately discharged from duty without any stigma vide letter dated 09.10.2001.

4. Counsel for the petitioner very vehemently submits that the discharge order dated 09.10.2001 was passed in a meeting held on 08.10.2001 of the Management and a perusal of the same would go on to show that the discharge was stigmatic in nature, which was done without any enquiry being held and therefore, the termination was bad and not sustainable. It was contended that as per the Model Standing Orders, a workman who continued after the expiry of probation period would be deemed to have been confirmed automatically and therefore, it was in such circumstances, compensation had been paid. It was submitted that the matter of suspension of the services of the worke