This application is made under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 for reinstatement of the applicant in service with full back benefits.
2. It is alleged that the applicant was employed as Junior Officer on a consolidated salary of Rs,1,505 per month since May, 1986. There was no complaint against the applicant and he was performing his duties regularly. The applicant made reports to the General Manager in which he regularly pointed out the irregularities and illegalities in the factory at night but the General Manager informed the applicant that he should not point out the irregularities of those persons who are working under the shelter of General Manager and the nature of report should be formal. It is also alleged that despite instructions of General Manager, applicant made reports and informed the correct position by which the General Manager was annoyed. It is also alleged that on 9-9-1986 the General Manager called the applicant in his office and informed that "Your services are no longer required" and the applicant was given termination letter. The applicant sent grievance notice but no reply was given; hence this application.
3. The respondents were served and filed reply statement. It is submitted that the applicant was not performing his duties to the satisfaction of the respondent as was expected by the Company.
Applicant was appointed as Officer in the management cadre in the Personnel Department and he supervised and administered the personnel functions and the work of the Personnel Department related to him. According to the terms and conditions of applicant's service, he was also required to make surprise visits to the factory during the night to ensure that every one did his duty properly, nothing wrong was done in the factory and it is running smoothly. The Shift Manager and other categories of the management staff work during the night shifts to supervise the work and workers of their departments and the factory. The applicant used to visit the factory during the shifts during which he gave directions to the personnel on the spot and he also reported the normally and irregularities directly to the General Manager of the Company to inform him so that further corrective actions/measures, if required would be taken by him. General Manager himself as the Administrative Chief of the Company's management appointed and introduced this system of supervise visits for proper supervision, administration, and smooth working. The applicant's probationary services were terminated by the respondents according to the terms of appointment letter dated 5-6-1986. It is further alleged that the application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 is time-barred, and not maintainable. The applicant was employed and working as an Officer in the management cadre in the Company, none of his rights under any labour law, settlement or award have been infringed. The termination was during the probationary period. The application is liable to be dismissed.
4. The applicant filed his affidavit-in-evidence and was cross-examined. Thereafter he closed his side. Respondent filed affidavit-in-evidence of Iqbal Hussain, Manager Industrial Relations and he was cross-examined.
5. I have heard learned Advocates of the parties and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant is a workman. He was not doing the work of supervisory nature. He was permanent employee and his services have been terminated without holding the enquiry and observing other provisions of law. The background of the termination of the applicant is that he was directed by the General Manager to give visits during night time and submit report. The applicant submitted correct report and further gave suggestions. The General Manager was annoyed and he tried that applicant should make report according to his wishes but the applicant always performed his work; hence he has been victimized. The applicant was not doing the work of supervisory nature and was doing the same on his own hand.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that the applicant was employed as Junior Officer in Personnel Department. He was MA., LL.B. The advertisement was made and the applicant made application for appointment. The appointment letter is produced. According to his appointment letter he had to supervise the work and the duties were assigned to him. The applicant was employed in the management cadre. The probationary period was six months.
Applicant did work for a period of three months and five days and his services have been terminated during the probationary period and as such this Court has no jurisdiction. Three months probationary period is given under the law for a worker. In the present case the probationary period was six months as the applicant was appointed in the management cadre. The applicant was appointed on 31-5-1986 and his services were terminated on 9-9-1986. Grievance notice was also replied. The applicant got his full and final settlement and now he cannot come to this Court.
The learned Advocate contended that the applicant himself has not said in the grievance notice that he was worker or workman. The applicant was officer, he was doing the work of supervisory nature. He has collected his full and final settlement and as such this application is not maintainable. Learned counsel has relied on 1982 PLC 844. It has been held that as the employee got full and final settlement, he is not entitled to any relief. Learned counsel also relied on 1986 PLC
352. In this case, it has been held that the applicant did not say in the grievance notice that he was a worker and as such he cannot take this plea. The learned counsel further contended that the applicant used to inspect the factory and give suggestions, these suggestions are always given by the officers. The applicant himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he was reported about his work to the General Manager. He used to sanction leave and sometimes recommending.
The applicant was doing the work of supervisory nature. The applicant was performing the duties of a supervisory and managerial nature and as such this application is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
8. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and perused the record.
Respondent has produced photostat copy of the application for employment Annexure 'R-1'. This shows that the applicant is MA., L.L.B. The pro forma of application for employment is also filed as Annexure 'R-2'. The applicant was appointed on 31-5-1986. Photostat copy of the appointment letter is produced as Annexure 'R-3'. This letter shows "probationary appointment". The applicant was appointed in the management cadre as a Junior Officer in Personnel Department on the terms and conditions w,e,f, 31-5-1986 shown in Annexure 'R-3'. The first condition of the appointment letter is that "You will be on probation for a period of 6 months during this period your services will be liable to termination without any notice." This Annexure 'R-3' was issued on 5-6-1986. The applicant has been terminated from service on 9-9-1986. This clearly shows that the applicant has been terminated from service during the probationary period and according to the terms and conditions of the service, his appointment was probationary for a period of 6 months and as such the application is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended before me that the applicant is not a workman. He was doing the work of supervisory nature. The applicant's appointment letter Annexure 'R-3' clearly shows that he was appointed in the management cadre as a Junior Officer in Personnel Department and the duties assigned to him clearly show that the applicant was doing the work of supervisory nature. His duties were such that which clearly shows that he was doing the work of supervisory nature. The respondent has also produced Annexure `R- 5' reply to the grievance notice. The respondent in para. No,2 of this letter has specifically mentioned that his appointment was probationary for the period of 6 months. Respondent- Company was not satisfied with his work and as such his services were terminated. The learned counsel for the respondent also contended that the applicant has received all his dues from the respondent and as such the application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 is not maintainable in law. The respondent has produced `R-9' letter to the applicant with subject full and final dues. This amount has been paid through pay order dated 20-9-1986. The applicant has admitted the receipt of this amount. The respondent has also produced 'R-12' which shows report regarding night visit during night of 15-6-1986 submitted by the applicant. This shows that the applicant used to visit and submit the report. The applicant also used to give suggestions. Respondent has produced photostat copy of letter dated 19-6-1986 `R-13' sent by the applicant to the Executive Co-ordinator.
In this letter, the applicant has written certain suggestions to the Executive Co-ordinator. This letter clearly shows that the applicant was doing the work of supervisory nature. The respondent has also produced other documents sent by the applicant. The respondent in his cross-examination has admitted that the applicant used to grant leave and sometimes recommending his subordinate.
9. From the material on record, I am satisfied that the services of the applicant were probationary for the period of six months. The applicant has been terminated from service during the probationary period. The applicant also received his legal dues in full and final settlement and he is no more employee of the respondent and the respondent has produced number of documents showing that the applicant was doing the work of supervisory nature and as such the applicant is not a workman. On account of these discussions, I am satisfied that the present application filed by the applicant is not maintainable and he is not a workman. I, therefore, dismiss this application. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.