JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)THE appellant was appointed as a Junior stenographer by respondent No. 2 Management with effect from October 21, 1980 initially on probation for a period of one year. The appellant claims that the appointment letter itself indicated that the probation period could be extended only if her work was not found to be satisfactory. The appellant had to be paid a consolidated salary of Rs. 700/- per month and on confirmation, the salary was to be enhanced to Rs. 1,000/- per month. The probation period was extended for the appellant on expiry of one year up to April 30, 1982 whereafter her services were terminated.
(2.)THE appellant was aggrieved by the termination of her services as it is her case that she was active in Union activity and the marketing Manager under whom she was working had misbehaved with her since she refused to yield to his wishes. The dispute between the workman and the Management was referred by the Secretary, Delhi Administration under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said act') to the Industrial Tribunal on March 10, 1983 as to whether the termination of the services of the appellant were unjustified and/or illegal and if so, what directions were necessary in that regard.
(3.)THE stand of the Management, on the other hand, was that in terms of the letter of appointment, the appellant was on probation for a period of one year or such further extended period as the Management might decide in its sole discretion and that she was to remain on probation until a letter of confirmation was issued to her. Sinde the work of the appellant had been found to be unsatisfactory by the management, her probation was initially extended and thereafter her services terminated.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.