Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2768 (MAD)

A. Gurusamy v. Presiding Officer, Coimbatore

2019-10-14

S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

body2019
JUDGMENT : Prayer: Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, after calling for the records pertaining to the Award dated 13.12.2002 passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.556 of 1999, quash the same and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to reinstate the petitioner as permanent workman with continuity of service, backwages and other attendant benefits, Award costs and render justice. 1. The Award dated 13.12.2002, passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.556 of 1999, is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. The writ petitioner was an employee of the 2nd respondent company and terminated from services. The contention of the writ petitioner is that even in case of the temporary employees, the employer cannot terminate the services by way of punishment or with a stigma without conducting any enquiry by affording opportunity to the employee concerned. The writ petitioner states that he was terminated from service on account of certain allegations and without conducting any enquiry. Thus, the order of termination caused a stigma and therefore, the Management has violated the Principles of Natural Justice and the procedures as contemplated were not followed. No enquiry was conducted before issuing the order of termination. Thus, the Award of the Labour Court is perverse and liable to be set aside. 3. The memos issued by the Management, which were marked as Exs.M-13 to M-17 were not considered by the Labour Court. The material evidences available with the second respondent were also not considered. The second respondent also failed to produce all those documents, so as to establish that the petitioner was performing his duties to the satisfaction of the superiors. At the outset, it is contended that the Labour Court has not considered the materials, evidences produced by the writ petitioner as well as the documents available. Thus, the award is perverse and liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Management disputed the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioner by stating that the writ petitioner was a temporary employee and he was working on Probation period during the relevant point of time. The competent authorities found that his performances were not up to the mark and not satisfactory. Even on previous occasions, memos were issued to the writ petitioner, enabling him to improve his performances. The competent authorities found that his performances were not up to the mark and not satisfactory. Even on previous occasions, memos were issued to the writ petitioner, enabling him to improve his performances. However, those memos were not punitive in nature and in fact, issued during the Probation period by the Management in order to provide an opportunity to improve his work performances. 5. In view of the fact that there was no improvement on the working performances of the writ petitioner, the Management had taken a decision to terminate the services of the writ petitioner during the Probation period. The writ petitioner was allowed to complete the Probation period only with an idea to provide a complete opportunity to improve his work performances and finally, the Management found that he has not improved and accordingly, the services were not confirmed and on expiry of the Probation period, he was terminated from services. Thus, complete opportunity was given to the writ petitioner during the Probation period to improve his work performances. Thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that confirmation of services can never be claimed as a matter of right. The confirmation of services are subject to the satisfactory performances of the duties and responsibilities during the Probation period. The very purpose and object of keeping an employee under Probation period is to assess the work performances and only on completion of satisfactory Probation period, the employer can issue an order of confirmation. Thus, the Management is empowered to discharge the services of completion of Probation on the ground that the services of a particular employee is not satisfactory. 7. The Labour Court considered all these aspects and arrived a conclusion that the writ petitioner has not established that the order of termination is punitive in nature. There is no victimization in respect of the discharge of the writ petitioner from services on the ground that his work performances were not satisfactory. In the absence of any such allegations, which all are to be substantiated, the order of termination cannot be held as illegal. The Labour Court, in paragraph 12 of the Award, categorically found that the writ petitioner was not a permanent employee of the Management and his services as well as the performances were not found not satisfactory. In the absence of any such allegations, which all are to be substantiated, the order of termination cannot be held as illegal. The Labour Court, in paragraph 12 of the Award, categorically found that the writ petitioner was not a permanent employee of the Management and his services as well as the performances were not found not satisfactory. Thus, the order of termination is simpliciter and cannot be construed as punitive. The order of termination simpliciter issued on the ground of unsatisfactory services during the Probation period is in consonance with the settled principles of law and there is no infirmity. Accordingly, the Award of the Labour Court is found to be valid and consequently, the Award dated 13.12.2002 passed by the 1st respondent in I.D.No.556 of 1990 is confirmed. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.