JUDGMENT
Madan B. Lokur, J.
1. The Petitioners are aggrieved by an Award dated 6th November, 2001 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal No. III, Delhi in ID No. 328/89.
2. The dispute referred for consideration was as follows:-
Whether the termination of the services of S/Shri Ram Lakhan and Naumi Prasad is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect?
3. In so far as Naumi Prasad is concerned, he did not file any statement of claim nor did he pursue the reference. Consequently, a no dispute Award was passed in his case.
4. As far as Ram Lakhan (Respondent/workman) is concerned, the case set up by him was that he had been employed on a permanent basis by the Petitioners on 9th January, 1987 on the post of Wiring Fitter Man. His services were illegally terminated on 25th February, 1989. Since he had completed more than 240 days of continuous service, he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act).
5. According to the Petitioners, the Respondent/ workman was appointed on probation for a period of six months by a letter dated 26th August, 1988. Since his work was not satisfactory, his services had come to an end on the conclusion of the period of probation. The Respondent/workman was asked to collect his dues but he failed to do so.
6. Both learned counsel for the parties made their submissions with regard to the question whether the Respondent/workman had been employed with effect from 9th January, 1987 or 26th August, 1988.
7. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence to suggest that the Respondent/workman was employed in 1987. The only documentary evidence available on record with respect to his employment is his letter of appointment dated 26th August, 1988 which shows that the Respondent/workman was engaged as a Helper on probation for a period of six months. The Respondent/workman has admitted his signatures on this letter of appointment. The learned Tribunal has expressed some surprise at the fact that there were two copies of this appointment letter but that is hardly of any consequence because there is no difference between these two appointment letters and it is quite natural if one copy is prepared for the employer and one for the employee. I do not think anything turns on this issue.
8. The letter terminating the probation period and the services of the Respondent/workman on 25th June, 1989 was not disputed by either party before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, it must be held that the Respondent/workman was employed with the Petitioners for the period mentioned by the Petitioners, that is, for a period of six months from 26th August, 1988 till 25th February, 1988.
9. The question then is whether the Respondent/ workman also worked for an earlier period, from 9th January, 1987 as alleged by him.
10. The learned Tribunal took into account two documents, namely, Ex.WW-1/2 and Ex.WW-1/3 which were inland letters addressed to the Respondent/workman and received by him at the address of the Petitioners some time in May, 1988 and November, 1987 respectively. According to the learned Tribunal, the receipt of these letters shows that the Respondent/workman was employed with the Petitioners during that period.
11. I am of the view that the two inland letters cannot be read as evidence to show that the Respondent/workman was working with the Petitioners. The two letters show, at best, that the address of the Petitioners were being used a postal address by the Respondent/workman and nothing more. It is possible that the Respondent/workman was using the premises for postal purposes (for whatever reason) and may have in this context received two letters but the fact that he received these letters at the address of the Petitioners does not lead to an inevitable conclusion that he was employed by the Petitioners.
12. The admitted position is that the Respondent/ workman was also given a card by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). This is Ex.WW-1/4. This card indicates the date of employment of the Respondent/workman as 26th August, 1988 and that he was engaged as a Helper. If the date of appointment of the Respondent/workman had been wrongly mentioned in the ESIC card, he could have protested when the card was being prepared, or soon thereafter about the incorrect date of appointment but there is no record of his having done so. The ESIC card would have given certain benefits to the Respondent/workman and, therefore, it would have been in his interest if he had raised some objection about the incorrect date of appointment. Since he did not do to, I am of the view that it must be assumed that he had accepted his date of appointment as 26th August, 1988. The events that transpired before 26th August, 1988, such as receipt of two inland letters, were purely co-incidental and had no relationship with the employment of the Respondent/workman with the Petitioners.
13. Under the circumstances, it must be held that the learned Tribunal erroneously concluded that the Respondent/ workman was permanently employed from 9th January, 1987. This finding is based on no evidence at all. If it is assumed that the two inland letters are sufficient for arriving at this conclusion, the finding in this regard must be held to be perverse. Since the Respondent/workman did not put in 240 days of continuous service, he was not entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 2-F of the Act. The Respondent/ workman had only put in six months service with the Petitioners as a probationer. In view of the unsatisfactory completion of his probation period, his services were dispensed with.
14. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and in so far as the Respondent/workman is concerned, it is held that the termination of his services was neither illegal nor unjustified.
15. The writ petition is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.