From my point of view his dismissal is illegal. He can approach the labour court and challenge the dismissal. A probationer when completes 1 year or more has to be confirmed or removed from the job. If employee does not receive any written communication, he is deemed as confirmed in his/her employment.
The above views are my personal. However, Mr Madhu TK, Mr Malik JS or Mr Vasant Nair can answer your query correctly.
From India, Bangalore
I beg to differ with Mr. Divekar and my reasons are:
The person concerned is reported to be in a managerial profile. If he he is indeed not a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, then he has no possibility of litigating over the issue.
Further, even if he a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act only the fact of Industrial Employment (Standig Orders) Act 1946 can help benefit of Clause 4-C of the act which states that "if a workman completes more than 240 days within a span of preceding 12 months, he will have to be confirmed by the organization."
But whether he is a workman under the said act or not, is decided by the facts of job responsibilities attached to his job. It is neither the title (designation) nor the pay, are by themselves adequate to deteremine the status of his employment.
Under the cnditions, if he does, however, wish to contest the position he finds himself in, he may approach the conciliation machinery under the Industrial Disputes Act claiming himself to be a "workman". Since, fortunately the Conciliation Officer under the act has NO authority to decide the dispute, he can, at best, concilaite between the disputants to resolve the matter. If he fails, based on his "failure report" the state government has the responsibility to "refer" or to "not refer" the dispute to an appropriate court constituted under Industrial Disputes Act. If the govet. refuses to "refer", the gentleman in question may have to approach concerned High Court to get the grievance redressed-with no guarantee of getting what he wants! If however, the govt does refer to dispute, the court will have to decide, as a "priliminary issue" the status of this gentleman, as the management will claim precisely this and the court may not be able to deny this request. Again further course will depend upon the court's verdict on this issue!
The long and short of this scenario is that the matter will consume considerable time and money and in my opinion, if the gentleman's profile is indeed "managerial", the chances of winning an argument are virtually NIL!
Decide what you wish to proceed with.
Cheers and Regards
August 28, 2010
From India, Pune
Thank you very much for providing valuable inputs on the case !
The person was engaged in a Financial Servvices Company, will it qualify under Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ?If yes what are the parameters to qualify as a workman ?
I would like to invite Mr Madhu TK, Mr Malik JS & Mr Vasant Nair to give their views on possible rights of the employee and legal recourse to follow to get justice.
From India, Bhubaneswar