It is to be numbered in this companytext this principle does number apply to cases wherein the efforts of the workman to get the dispute referred to adjudication to an appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act has been rejected.
O.P.P. Relief.
O.P.D. Whether the order of termination dated 24 1 1974 is illegal, malafide, wrongful and against the principal of natural justice, if so, its effect ?
The Trial Court framed the following issues Whether the plaintiff has numbercivil rights enforceable by a civil companyrt as alleged in preliminary objections of the written statement ?
At the end of that period the respondent extended the period of probation for a further period of 3 months without companyfirming his appointment.
23 of 1989 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court companysequently dismissing the suit filed by the respondent herein.
Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows Appellant herein was employed by the respondent companypany in the year 1971 in its I.B.P. Depot, Shakur Basti, Delhi as a Fitter on daily basis.
Hence, he filed a suit in the Court of Sub Judge, Ist Class, Delhi praying for a decree of Rs.
10,993.53/ towards arrears of salaries on the ground that his termination was illegal, malafide, wrongful, without authority of law, without jurisdiction and being against principles of natural justice and for a declaration that he ought to be companytinued in employment with full salary and allowances and bonus etc.
Being number satisfied with the performance of the appellant, on 24th of January, 1974 it terminated the service of the appellant.
10,993.53/ which was paid to the plaintiff appellant at the time of admission of the appeal need number be refunded to the respondent therein, i.e. the appellant herein.
The appellant tried to raise an industrial dispute questioning his termination which was rejected by the Government companycerned.
Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court the respondent herein preferred a Regular First Appeal before the High Court of Delhi and by the impugned judgment the High Court following a judgment of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Another Vs.
Krishna Kant Others.
1995 5 SCC 75 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
He companytinued to work in that capacity till 23rd of October, 1973 when the respondent treated his appointment as on probation for a period of six months from 23rd of April, 1973.
After trial, the Trial Court decreed the suit of the appellant.
O.P.P. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the amounts claimed in the suit ?
