High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Balvinder Singh Gabrie v. Prescribed Authority Labour Court - WRIT - C No. 25571 of 1997  RD-AH 1805 (24 January 2006)
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.25571 OF 1997
Balvinder Singh Gabrie ....Petitioner
Labour Court No.3 U.P.
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
I have perused the record also.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner workman was initially appointed on 9.6.88 for six months as a trainee sales man. His training period was extended for a period of three months on 20.12.1988 and, thereafter, was extended for another three months.
The award of the Labour Court records that after his training period came to an end, he was appointed on 14.8.89 as a probationer, which was to be with effect from 1.8.89. The contention of the employer was that because his services were not satisfactory, they were brought to an end on 27.1.90 before the completion of the probationary period.
The Labour Court has given its award resting the entire case on the letter dated 14.8.89 which is also on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, argued that the letter-dated 14.8.89 was never served upon him. In cross examination, witnesses for the employer has stated that the letter was sent by the office of the employer but he could not say whether it was accepted by the petitioner or not.
However, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he paid Rs. 1500/- as per clause-11 of the appointment
letter dated 9.6.88 and not under the letter of probation and also contends that he has asked for his confirmation by way of his letter-dated 18.11.89. The letter dated 14.8.89 appointing the petitioner on probation has not been approved before the Labour Court even though the conclusions have been reached on the basis of this letter itself.
Even otherwise, the letter dated 14.8.89 records that the petitioner workman was appointed as a sales representative under the Sales Representative Act, 1976. Therefore, any matter relating to sales representative would necessarily have to be adjudicated under Section 10(1d) of the Industrial Act and it would be open to adjudication under Section K of the Act.
In view of the above discretion, I remand the matter back to the Labour Court to examine the issues relating to order dated 14.8.89 including the question as to whether reference under Section 4K itself could be adjudicated in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rhone-Poulenc (India) Ltd Versus State of U.P. and others as reported in 2000 (87)FLR 505.
The award of the Labour Court is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for decision afresh which shall be done if possible within a period of six months.
This petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
Dated : 24.1.06
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.