Says the respondent, that the appellant was appointed by order dated July 21, 1973.
In this companytext the facts as alleged by the respondent may be taken as true.
The respondent inter alia companytended that the appellant was a salesman appointed on probation for six months and subsequently on the expiry of the initial period, the period of probation was extended upto 8th Sept., 1974 and on the expiry of this extended period of probation, his service was terminated by letter dated 12th October, 1974, as he was number found suitable for the post to which he was appointed.
Accordingly it was held that the termination was neither illegal number improper number unjustified and the claim of the appellant was negatived.
Appeal by special leave from the Award dated the 31st May, 1980 of the Additional Labour Court, Delhi in Industrial I.D. No.
The Labour Court, on evaluation of evidence both oral and documentary, held that the termination of the service was in accordance with the standing orders justifying the removal of the employee on unsuccessful probation during the initial or extended period of probation and therefore the termination in this case, according to the Labour Court, would number companystitute retrenchment within the meaning of section 2 oo read with section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act.
520 per month from the date of termination till reinstatement.
Hence, this appeal by special leave.
364 of 1981.
Subsequently, respondent moved for setting aside the ex parte award and seeking permission to participate in the proceedings, which motion was granted.
An apparent companytradiction which stares in the eye on the stand taken by the respondent is overlooked by the Labour Court which has resulted in the miscarriage of justice.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As the respondent management at one stage failed to participate in the proceedings, the reference was heard ex parte and the Labour Court made an award on 2nd May, 1977 directing reinstatement of the appellant with companytinuity of service and full back wages at the rate of Rs.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. The appellant Mohan Lal was employed with the respondent M s Bharat Electronics Limited as Salesman at its Delhi Sales Depot on a salary of Rs.
Markendaya for the Respondent.
M. Tarkunde, Hemant Sharma and P. H. Parekh for the Appellant.
Consequent upon this termination, an industrial dispute was raised and the Delhi Administration, by its order dated 24th April, 1976 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication Whether the termination of services of Shri Mohan Lal is illegal and or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
His service was abruptly terminated by letter dated 12th October 1974 with effect from 19th October, 1974.
62 of 1976.
520 per month from 8th December, 1973.
