Termination of a probationary employee must comply with legal requirements, including conducting an inquiry and providing notice; failure to do so renders the termination illegal.

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

1. The instant petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

• “A. Set aside the award dated 04.12.2018 passed by Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-1, Dwarka Courts Complex, Delhi in I.D. No.129/2016; B. Call for the records of the case. C. Pass any other order(s) as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The relevant facts necessary for the adjudication of the instant petition are reproduced herein below:

• a) The petitioner i.e., Jamia Millia Islamia (“petitioner entity” hereinafter) vide a letter of appointment dated 9th May, 2009, appointed the respondent (“respondent workman” hereinafter) at the post of a „Sweeper/Safai Karamchari‟ in their Sanitation Unit on W.P.(C) 6676/2019 Page 2 of 25 compassionate grounds and subsequently on 15th May, 2009, the respondent workman after submitting the necessary documents and going through a medical examination, joined the services of the petitioner entity.

• b) As per pleadings, the petitioner entity alleges to have served two show-cause notices dated 10th February, 2011 and 23rd August, 2011 to the respondent workman, to which no reply was ever received.

• Consequently, the Vice-Chancellor of the petitioner entity vide order bearing No. F.No.3581(V)/RO/(Estt)/2011, dated 24th October, 2011, terminated the services of the respondent workman in terms of Ordinance VI Rule(6)(10)(2) and Clause 5 of the terms of appointment.

• c) Pursuant to which, the respondent workman being aggrieved by the order of termination, sought a mercy appeal which was examined by the Executive Council vide resolution No.EC-2011(IX): Reso-11, dated 28th November, 2011 wherein the said appeal was rejected on the account that the respondent workman‟s performance was found unsatisfactory during the probation period.

• d) Thereafter, being aggrieved by the aforementioned dismissal of the appeal, the respondent workman raised an industrial dispute before the appropriate government. The appropriate government vide letter bearing No. L-42011/60/2016 - IR(DU), dated 1st June, 2016, referred the industrial dispute between the petitioner entity and the respondent workman for adjudication to the learned Central Government W.P.(C) 6676/2019 Page 3 of 25 Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No 1, New Delhi (“CGIT”

• hereinafter) under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“the Act”

• hereinafter), under the following terms of reference:

• “Whether the services of the workman Shri Vikas s/o. Shri Diwan Chand have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, what relief is the workman entitled to and what directions are necessary in this respect?”

• e) The learned CGIT, after completion of pleadings, on 9th March, 2017 framed the following issues:

• “i) Whether management has illegally terminated services of the claimant as alleged? (ii) Whether the claimant is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages as alleged? (iii) Whether the claim is not legally maintainable in view of the various preliminary objections?”

• f) Thereafter, the learned CGIT vide the impugned Award dated 4th December, 2018, in ID. No.129/2016, decided the industrial dispute against the petitioner entity and in favour of the respondent workman thereby, holding that the respondent workman is entitled to 50% back wages and reinstatement with continuity of service.

• g) Aggrieved by the aforementioned Award, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking to quash the impugned Award dated 4th December, 2018.

• W.P.(C) 6676/2019 Page 4 of 25

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner entity submitted that the learned CGIT has erred in passing the impugned Award as the same has been passed without taking into consideration