Presumably thinking that this was sufficient, the companypany did number issue a formal letter of appointment.
No letter of appointment was then issued to the respondent, but on being asked to sign a pro forma Ex.
W. 10 to W. 42 before the tribunal.
In reaching this companyclusion the tribunal was impressed by two allegations made by the respondent firstly, that the management felt resentful against him for his having companyplained to too authorities against their failure to issue the letter of appointment, and secondly, that they were annoyed with him for his having demanded extra payment in respect of work he was made to do in relation to certain companycerns in which the companypany was interested.
The companypany obtained special leave from this Court and filed this appeal against the said order of the tribunal.
On being so required, the companypany issued on 26 Jane 1967 a letter of appointment, Ex.
As evidence for having done such work he had retained with him companyies of letters dictated to him and which he produced as Exs.
It directed reinstatement of the respondent and payment of half of his salary from the date of termination of his services till reinstatement.
In its reply dated 17 April 1967, Ex.
A dispute having thus arisen, the respondent moved the Central Government who referred the question to the tribunal under Section 10 1 read with Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
M. 1, which companytained certain terms and companyditions of service, he filled it and signed the same on 21 July 1966.
In the meantime, the respondent had approached the Labour Commissioner with a request that the management should be directed to issue, as required by the Delhi Shops and Eatablishment Act, 1954, and the rules thereunder, the said letter of appointment.
M. 5, the companypany informed the respondent that his appointment was as a probationer lor one year with effect from 18 July 1966.
307 a month.
On 18 July 1960, its Delhi branch appointed the respondent as a stenographer on a salary of Rs.
On 2 April 1967 the respondent wrote to the companypany demanding a letter of appointment.
J.M. Shelat, J. The appellant company is carrying on business in general insurance and has its registered office in Calcutta.
On 17 July 1967 the companypany terminated the respondents service stating that his services were numberlonger required.
It has a branch office in Delhi.
