IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated 30..6..2008 Coram: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRU W.P. Nos. 12075 and 14314 of 1997 W.P. No. 12075 of 1997:- R. Ramasubramanian .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Vellore 2. The Management of Sundaram Fasteners Ltd. Harita Hosur .. Respondents
W.P. No. 12075 of 1997 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records and papers from the files of the first respondent in I.D. No. 448 of 1994 and quash its impugned Award dated 31.10.1996 in so far as the first respondent has negatived the claim of the petitioner for re-instatement in service, with backwages with continuity of service and with all attendant and consequential benefits.
W.P. No. 14314 of 1997:-
The Management of Sundaram Fasteners Ltd.
Harita Hosur .. Petitioner vs. 1. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Vellore 2. R. Ramasubramanian .. Respondents
W.P. No. 14314 of 1997 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for issuance of writ of Certiorari calling for the records and papers from the files of the first respondent in I.D. No. 448 of 1994 and quash its Award dated 31.10.1996.
For Petitioner : Party in person
For Management : Mr. Karthik
for M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.
C O M M O N O R D E R
W.P. No. 12075 of 1997 is filed by the workman challenging the Award dated 31.10.1996 passed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 448 of 1994 insofar as the claims of the workman for reinstatement, backwages and continuity of service were negatived.
2. W.P. No. 14314 of 1997 is filed by the Management against the very same Award in granting a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to the workman in lieu of reinstatement. This Court, vide order dated 18.9.1997, directed the Management to deposit to Rs.15,000/- to the credit of the I.D. before the Labour Court. Subsequently, by an order dated 27.8.2003, the workman was permitted to withdraw the said amount.
3. Heard the workman appearing in person and Mr. Karthik appearing for M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co. for the Management.
4. Since both the writ petitions are interconnected and arise out of the same Award, they were heard together and a common order is being passed.
5. By directions of this Court, the original records relating to the I.D. were called for and also perused.
6. The parties are respectively referred to as workman and Management as the case may be for easy reference.
7. The workman joined as an Apprentice in the Hosur Plant on 06.8.1990 and worked in that capacity up to 31.8.1991. Subsequently, it was extended from 01.9.1991 to 08.9.1991 as an Operator Trainee and then, for a period of six months as a Probationer from 09.9.1991 to 31.3.1992. The said probation was extended from 01.4.1992 to 30.9.1992 and further extended from 01.10.1992 to 31.3.1993. The contention of the workman was that the final extension given to him by order dated 15.10.1992 after the expiry of the earlier probation period which is not authorised and for the first time, he was informed by the said letter that his performance was not satisfactory and he must improve in certain areas. There were other employees who were also given such extension order but their services were confirmed. It was only because he was member of the Trade Union, he was orally informed that if he does not dissociate from the Union, he will have problems with his probation. He also submitted that during the 31 months of service, in the first half, he worked as a Machine Operator and in the second half, he had worked as a Material Mover.
8. However, when his services were terminated by order dated 31.3.1994, as it was not justified. He raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer. He also contended that in the performance appraisal report, it was originally noted as satisfactory and later on, it was prefixed with the letters ‘un’ and made to look as if it was ‘unsatisfactory’. The petitioner’s dispute was taken on file as I.D. No. 448 of 1994. A counter statement dated 08.02.1995 was filed.
9. Before the Labour Court, while the workman examined himself as W.W.1, on the side of the Management , two witnesses were examined as M.W.1 and M.W.2. While the workman’s documents were marked as Exs. W.1 to W.4, the documents on the side of the Management were marked as Exs. M.1 to M.11.
10. With reference to the extension of probation, the certified Standing Orders of the Company marked as Ex. M.6, reads as follows:-
“…. In all such cases, the management shall decide upon the initial period of probation as well as the extended period of probation, if any necessary, depending upon the nature of the job to which he is promoted and the competency and experience of the employee concerned. He may at any time during the probationary period, be reverted to his original post, if in the opinion of the Management his progress is unsatisfactory or if the post has become redundant.”
11. Therefore, it is not correct for the petitioner to contend that if the probation is not extended within the prescribed period, it will result in an automatic confirmation. It is also seen from Ex. M.8, the last extension order, the workman had signed for having received the original order. In that order, it was stated that the petitioner’s performance continues to be unsatisfactory but he was given another opportunity.
12. The grievance of the workman was that in the performance appraisal, Annexures IV to VI dated 31.12.1991, 30.6.1992 and September 1992 respectively, there has been interpolations. The letters ‘un’ were prefixed to the word ‘satisfactory’, which is in a different handwriting. Therefore, it is a fabricated document and he also made a plea before this Court to produce the original of the same. But in the enquiry before the Labour Court, he could not elicit anything from the two Management’s witnesses with reference to their assessment of his performance during the period he was in service. Though in Ex. W.1, which is dated 09.12.1989, the performance was stated to be satisfactory, this Court is not concerned with the issue of the date of the certificate, but the subsequent extension given to the petitioner was based upon the assessment of opinion made by the Company’s officers.
13. The Labour Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed before it, came to the conclusion that the termination was justified. However, having regard to the fact that the workman had put in 3= years of service, it had granted a compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Labour Court.
14. However, as per Ex. M.10, the petitioner had returned two cheques for the value of Rs.1,730 and Rs. 5038/-. Even on the compensation awarded by the Labour Court, the petitioner was directed to withdraw only 50% of the amount. However, considering the fact that the workman had put in 3= years of service and his and his probation was thrice extended and considering the fact that the Labour Court had only ordered Rs.30,000/- as compensation, this Court feels that it is inadequate. Therefore, a direction is issued to the Management to pay another Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation. Hence, the writ petition filed by the Management must necessarily fail. The Labour Court was well within its power to grant compensation so that a workman may not be put to grave hardship when a termination had abruptly brought an end to his employment.
15. In view of the above, W.P. No.14314 of 1997 filed by the Management will stand dismissed. W.P. No. 12075 of 1997 filed by the workman will stand disposed of to the extent indicated above. The Management is directed to comply with this order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
gri
To
The Presiding Officer
Labour Court
Vellore