A probationer is not a workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Delhi HC
Where the confirmation of a probationer is not given explicitly in writing in the appointment letter, it is deemed that the probationer is on extended probation period and her services could be terminated by the employer during the probation or extended probation by giving adequate notice.The Delhi High Court relied on previous judgements to conclude that the termination of service of...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Where the confirmation of a probationer is not given explicitly in writing in the appointment letter, it is deemed that the probationer is on extended probation period and her services could be terminated by the employer during the probation or extended probation by giving adequate notice.
The Delhi High Court relied on previous judgements to conclude that the termination of service of a probationer in terms of the stipulation contained in the contract of employment does not amount to “retrenchment” within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
M/s Deccan Charters Private Limited (Petitioner) challenged the award of the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court awarded reinstatement with full back wages to the respondent.
The Respondent was appointed by the Petitioner as “Trainee AME” on probation for a period of three months. One of the clauses of the appointment letter provided that the Respondent shall be deemed to continue on probation until confirmed in writing. According to another clause of the appointment letter, the Respondent’s services could be terminated during the probation or extended probation by giving seven days notice in writing and payment in lieu thereof.
The Petitioner alleged that the Respondent’s performance was not satisfactory and was therefore not confirmed. The Respondent raised an industrial dispute with the Labour Court.
The Labour Court held that the termination was illegal and granted reinstatement to the respondent with back wages and continuity of service along with the consequential benefits. The Petitioner challenged the said decision.
The Delhi High Court ruled that since the employment of the Respondent had not been confirmed in writing, she was deemed to be on extension of probation. The Court further ruled that the Respondent is not a workman within the definition of 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The writ petition was allowed and the impugned award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with back wages to the Respondent was set aside.
Justice J.R. Midha presided over the case.
