SUKHBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the order of the Central Government refusing to refer the Industrial Dispute raised by the petitioner to the Industrial Tribunal.

(2.) . The lads giving rise to this writ petition are us follows:

(3.) . On August 14,1970 the Syndicate Bank (for short 'Bank'), appointed the petitioner as a temporary attender for a period of two months on a salary ofRs.92.00 with a special allowance of R.S.7.00 and House Rent Allowance of Rs.11.00 per month. Pursuant to the order of appointment, the petitioner joined the service of the bank. By a written communication dated January 22, 1971 the Custodian of the bank in supersession of the earlier letter of appointment dated August 14, 1970 informed the petitioner that he had been appointed as a probalionary attender to work at Delhi - Mayapuri Branch ofthe bank from August 17,1970 on a salary of Rs.ll6.00 . special allowance of RS.10.00 .HRA of Rs.14.00 and city compensatory allowance of Rs. 15 per month. According to the said communication the appointment of the petitioner in the first instance was on probation for a period of six months, which could be extended and on the expiration of the period of six months or the extended period, as the case may be. the petitioner could be confirmed if his work and conduct were found to be satisfactory. The petitioner was further informed that during the period of probation his services could be terminated by giving him one month's notice or salary in lieu thereof. On February 16,1971 the probation of the petitioner was extended for a further period of three months. The memorandum extending the period of probation slated that during this period, the work and conduct of the petitioner will be watched. On May 12. 1971 the period of probation of the petitioner was again extended for a further period of I I days as he had availed of 11 days extraordinary leave from April 19.1971 to April 29.1971. The extended period of probation came to an end on May 27,1971. Since the probation of the petitioner was not extended nor was he confirmed, his services stood terminated with effect from May 27,1971. Again on January 25,1972 the bank once more appointed the petitioner as a probationary attender at its Delhi-Shahdara Branch. But the appointment of the petitioner did not last for long as his services were terminated by the bank on November 10.1972. It is alleged by the petitioner '.hat a day prior to the said termination order viz November 9, 1972. his wife sustained burn injuries and on receipt of this information, he applied for leave from November 10,1972 which was not granted and instead his services were terminated by the Bank, the fourth respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner on February 9,1973 filed a representation to the Custodian of the Bank against the order of his termination on the ground that the same was unfair, arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner, however, did not receive any reply thereto.