IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.11.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA W.P.No.6578 of 2019 A.Ham Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The Management of STANADYNE Amalgamations Pvt. Ltd., 96, Araravoyal Village, Thiruvallur Taluk, Thiruvallur District - 602 025. ... Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the Award dated 16.11.2018 made in I.D.No.90/2015 passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, backwages and with all other attendant benefits.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilnathan For Respondent : Mr.G.Ravikumar

ORDER

Challenging the orders passed by the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai in I.D.No.90/2015, the present writ petition is filed.

2.The writ petitioner was engaged as a Trainee on 28.10.2011 to undergo job training and other related work. The training period was for twelve months. On completion of the training period, he was posted as a Technical Assistant - Probationer on 08.10.2013. He was paid basic wages of Rs.4,500/- per month with other allowances like house rent allowance, flexi allowance etc. On completion of probation, the Management terminated the services of the petitioner with effect from 07.10.2014 and served a letter dated 06.10.2014 to the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the I.D. Act") in I.D.No.90/2015 before the Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, vide her orders dated 16.11.2018, dismissed the petition filed by the present writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the said orders of the Labour Court, the present writ petition is filed.

3. Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner contended that the Labour Court had dismissed the claim of the petitioner without taking into account the fact that the petitioner had worked continuously for a period of 240 days and that the Management, without complying with the provisions envisaged under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, had terminated the services of the petitioner. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "State Bank of India Vs N.Sundaramoney" reported in "(1976) 1 SCC 822 and contended that if the workman swims into the harbour of Section 25F, he cannot be retrenched without payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment as prescribed therein read with Section 25B(2) and that the order of appointment, which bears in its bosom the “good bye” to the employee after a few days, calls for construction in the light of Section 2(OO) and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also relied on the decision of the Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.9925/2007 and contended that when a casual employee had worked continuously for 240 days his services cannot be dispensed with as is done in the present case.

4. Per contra, Mr.G.Ravikumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that as per the terms and conditions of the contract of employment between the petitioner and the respondent, there is no guarantee of confirmation of service as an employee on successful completion of the probation period or any extension thereof. He would also contend that since the probationers would not come under the purview of Section 2(s) of the I.D. Act, he cannot stake any claim by raising dispute before the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Section 2(s) of the Act is extracted hereunder :

"workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of em