GENERAL MANAGER Vs. SASIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ext. P8 order of the appellate authority under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960 is challenged in this petition by the petitioners who are officials of the Corporation Bank Ltd. which has its head office at Mangalore. They were the respondents in Shop Appeal No. 22 of 1972 before the appellate authority who passed Ext. P8 order. The appeal before the appellate authority was filed by the 1st respondent who was a probationer appointed by the Corporation Bank. He was selected earlier for apprenticeship to learn work in the Bank. This was by an order dated 21st August 1971. Ext. P1 is a copy of that order. He was to be an apprentice for three months at the end of which his case was to be considered for appointment as a clerk and that, initially on probation. Later, by order dated 19th November 1971, copy of which is Ext. P2 the 1st respondent was appointed as a probationary clerk subject to the Service Regulations of the Bank. According to the petitioners here his service during probation was not satisfactory and further he failed to secure a pass in the test which he was obliged to pass. It is said that since he failed to pass the test during the period of probation and since his work was not satisfactory, he was relieved from the service of the Bank by order dated 13th May 1972. Ext. P3 is the copy of that order. Pursuant to Ext. P3 he was relieved on 15th May 1972. It is against that order Ext. P3 that the 1st respondent filed the appeal before the appellate authority. Ext. P4 is the copy of the application filed before the appellate authority. To that the petitioners herein objected by Ext. P5 written statement. It was contended by the petitioners herein as respondents in the appeal that the service of the appellant was dispensed with for reasonable cause, that his service was not satisfactory and that he had not passed the test. Ext. P7 is produced by the petitioners herein as the relevant extract of the Service Regulations and it is so produced to show that passing of the test was one of the requirements for satisfactory completion of probation. In Ext. P8 order passed by the appellate authority it was found that no domestic enquiry was held before finding that the 1st respondent's service was unsatisfactory and no attempt was made to prove that fact before the appellate authority. For that reason it was found that the termination order had to be vacated and the 1st respondent reinstated with the benefit of back wages. In regard to the relief of reinstatement taking into account the fact that the 1st respondent had been employed only for about 8 months prior to termination, option was given to pay three months salary in lieu of reinstatement.

(2.) This case has come up before the Division Bench since one of us referred the case as one raising an important question concerning the application of S.18(1) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960. S.18(1) enables termination of services of an employee employed continuously for a period of not less than six months for reasonable cause on giving notice of at least a month or wages in lieu of such notice. But such notice shall not be necessary where the termination is on a charge of misconduct supported by satisfactory evidence recorded at an enquiry held for the purpose. Sub-s.(2) of S.18 is relevant for the purpose of this case and therefore we quote it here:

(3.) In a case where a probationer whose service is liable to be terminated if it is found unsatisfactory is discharged from service on the basis that it is so found it is not a termination on account of any misconduct on the part of the employee. Therefore, in such a case there is no need to hold an enquiry. A probationer holds his office on trial, and it is one of the conditions of his probation that his confirmation depends on his completing satisfactory service during the period of probation. His work and conduct are liable to be watched during the period and it is the assessment of such work and conduct that ultimately determines the question of confirmation. Therefore, if a decision is taken to terminate his service because his service is not satisfactory to the appointing authority, there need be no enquiry to prove that fact. This position is well established to call for any discussion. Reference need be made only to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Dr. T. C. Pillai v. Indian Institute of Technology, Guindy (1971 (1) LLJ 530) and B. L. Gupta v. State, of Haryana (1978 (1) LLJ 316).