Illegal Termination

I was employed with a Govt. of India undertaking (Now a Private MNC listed company). I joined the co. on [deleted] a7 following are the facts: SEQUENCE OF EVENTS. - Acknowledgement from respondent for joining of duties of the Co. : 21.09.1990 - Joining by the respondent in the company : 23.10.1990 - Letter informing the extension of probationary period : 26.11.1991 - Probation period extended till : 22.01.1992 - Termination from services : 18.03.1992 - Award by labour court to reinstate services with back wages : 27.02.1996 I was never issued any appraisal letter during the probation period nor appraised nor warned. I was given a month's salary at the time of terminating me from the services on [deleted] U/s 25F(I) of the ID Act. However, Sec. 25F (2&3) were not complied. From [deleted] till [deleted], I was never told my performance was unsatisfactory nor any memo / explanation call was made. I carried on work & performed my duties on the job without any interruption. After termination, I filed a case with Industrial court and Tribunal, Gurgaon which awarded in my favour & directed the co. with immediate reinstatement with back wages. After this the Co. filed a CWP with Punjab & Haryana High court in 1996. The high court stayed the matter with the reward to pay 50% of the last drawn wages at the time of termination. since then, I have never been heard by the High court. It's 20 long years. Now in 2014 Dec'2014, I took up the case again with a new counsel who applied to the High court for the early hearing application on the matter since the case has been delayed for 20+ years. Now the following questions arise: 1. whether termination justified, if no, then what is the legal remedy whether reinstatement with award of back wages or a lump sum compensation. 2. Can the co. terminate any employee arbitrarily without giving any chance of explanation to the employee. The non-performance has not been documented. 3. Whether the ruling in the following case will apply "State of Punjab Versus Dharam Singh (SC 1968) has been quoted wherein it states “where the service rules fixed a certain period of time beyond which the probation period can’t be extended and an employee appointed or promoted to the post on probation is allowed to continue in that post after completion of the maximum period of probation without an express order of confirmation. He can’t be deemed in that post as a probationer by implication, the reason is that such an implication is negativated by the service rules by bidding extension of the probationer period beyond the maximum period fixed by it. In such a case, it is permissible to draw the inference that the employee allowed to continue on the post after completion of maximum period of probation has been confirmed by implication". 4. Observations of the Labour and Industrial tribunal. As per the order of the Industrial court, performance of the workmen was not reviewed after 22.01.1992 nor any intimation was sent. The probation period had therefore expired on 22.01.1992 and the termination has been effected after 54 days from the date of probation period & this period of 54 days can’t be brushed aside as lightly as was done by the management in its written statement before the Industrial court. Termination was done after the expiry of the probation period and the petitioner had completed 240 days of service. The management didn’t comply with the mandatory provisions of Sec.25 F of the I.D. Act & hence the termination is bad in law. 5. Whether the judgement in the following case will be applicable to me: Hans Raj vs Presiding Officer Labour Court ... on 30 July, 1996 Punjab-Haryana High Court Equivalent citations: (1996) 114 PLR 701 / Bench: G Singhvi, M Singhal A person appointed on probation can ordinarily be removed from service in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of employment on the ground of unsatisfactory performance or failure to give satisfaction during the period of probation. If such an employee challenges the termination of his service on the ground of arbitrariness, the court can examine whether there was some material on the basis of which the employer could form an opinion that the employee is not fit to be continued in service. If there is a total absence of such material an inference can be drawn by the court that the termination of service has been brought about arbitrarily, as held by the Supreme Court in Syed Ahmed Hussain v. Andhra Bank (supra). 6. Whether the judgement in the following case is applicable to me: Management of K-S.R.T.C. Mangalore v. M. Boraiah, in (1984-I-LLJ-l 10). The ratio of that decision is that discharge of a probationer amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) being terminated by the employer of the services of workman for "any reason whatsoever", in the words of that provision. So if while discharging a probationer, the requirements of Section 25F are not complied with, the order of termination is void. Since the respondents were workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act, Section 25F of the Act had to be complied with if they had put in 240 days of service in the year prior to the date of termination of service (Sec. 25B). Respondents had admittedly put in over 240 days of service. Hence the termination of their service was illegal, since compliance of Section 25F is a condition precedent to the termination of service 7.Whether the following judgement is applicable to me: Ajit Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court ... on 7 May, 2002, Equivalent citations: 2002 (94) FLR 446, (2002) IIILLJ 554 P H. Bench: G Singhvi, M Kumar, Punjab-Haryana High Court: We can take judicial notice of the fact that adjudication of the disputes raised under the Act takes years together and during the long interregnum, the workman cannot be expected to sit idle. Rather, he is bound to do something for earning his livelihood. If his act of obtaining employment during the pendency of reference proceedings etc., could be made a ground for interfering with the award of reinstatement, then in all the cases the employer would succeed in persuading the superior Court to pass the order like the one impugned before us. However, that would clearly be against the settled principles of industrial jurisprudence and law laid down by the Supreme Court. Kindly let me know your expert opinion. regards Rajesh Bhatia