JUDGMENT

Mr M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is filed challenging judgement dt.10.08.2022passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP- 831-1996.

2. The said Writ Petition had been filed by the appellant (herein) challenging Annexure P-7 Award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Panipat on a reference made by the State of Haryana under section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

3. In the said reference, the Labour Court had to determine whether the termination of services of respondent No.2 (herein) were justified and in accordance with law.

LPA-1055-2022 (O&M)

4. Respondent No.2 had been appointed as a Bottling Attendant in the Distillery Unit of the appellant in 1988, and he continued to work upto 13.01.1990, on which day, his services were terminated without assigning any reason.

5. Respondent No.2 contended that no notice was given to him; that no retrenchment compensation was paid to him as required under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; and there was no charge-sheet or any domestic enquiry held against him; and so, the termination of his services was illegal, unjust and he was entitled to reinstatement with back wages.

6. Respondent No.2 had earlier approached this High Court by filing Writ Petition No. CWP-875-1990 along with others challenging his termination, but the same was dismissed on 04.05.1990 (P-4) by a Division Bench of this Court without assigning any reasons by simply stating one word "dismissed".

The award of the Labour Court

7. Before the Labour Court, respondent No.2 examined himself as WW-1 and marked Exhibits A-1 and A-2, and the appellant examined MW-1 and marked Exhibits M-1 to M-5.

8. The appellant contended before the Labour Court that the reference was not maintainable in view of the decision in the said Writ Petition.

9. This plea was rejected stating that it was in liminidismissed and such an order would not operate as res judicata.

10. The case of the appellant was that respondent No.2 had been engaged as a daily-rated worker; that on 05.10.1988, he along with others were engaged against the permanent post of unskilled bottling attendants; that he was put on probation for a period of one year which was later extended for one more year on 12.10.1989; and so his services were terminated on 13.01.1990 as it was found to be not satisfactory.

11. The Labour Court held that in the Standing Orders governing the service conditions of the employees of the appellant, the maximum period of probation could only be one year, and there was no power to extend it from one year to two years, as was done by the appellant.

It held that a period of probation can at best be only extended by six months from the initial period of six months, and any stipulation in the letter of appointment or any other order extending the period of probation beyond this one year period would not be valid, and the Managing Director of the appellant had no authority to do so.

It held that the services of respondent No.2 stood confirmed after a period of six months, if they were not terminated before that period.

The Labour Court also rejected the plea of the appellant that certified Standing Orders which are applicable to an employee of Co- operative Sugar Mills, Panipat are not applicable to the employees of distillery which was a separate unit on the ground that such an argument would be contrary to the pleading of the appellant in the written statement filed by it where there was an admission that the certified Standing Orders govern the service conditions of the workman.

Reliance was also placed on the provisions of the Model Standing Orders frame