ANANT PRASAD JAISWAL Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri K.P. Agarwal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the Petitioner and Sri Navin Sinha, learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 2.

(2.) Sri Anant Prasad Jaiswal, an associate Professor in the Department of Extension and Social Forestry, Faculty of Forestry, Birsa Agricultural University, Kanke, Ranchi the Petitioner, seeks to challenge the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kanpur, the Respondent No. 1, dated 2nd June, 1988, rendered in Industrial Dispute No 48 of 1986 referred under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, whereby the termination of his previous employment with the State Bank of India in Peepiganj Branch in the district of Gorakhpur with effect from 17th December, 1982, prior to completion of probationary period, has been held to be justified. Copy of the order of termination is to be found as Annexure-12 to the petition. According to this order, the termination of the services of the Petitioner was ordered in terms of paragraph 522(1) of the Shastri Award. It is not disputed that under paragraph 522(1) of the Shastri Award, the Bank is empowered to terminate the services of an employee before the completion of the period of probation Indisputably, on 17th December, 1982 the period of probation of the Petitioner had not expired and as such his services could validly be terminated by the Bank. No umbrage can be taken to the order of termination which has been rightly upheld by the Industrial Tribunal though no other grounds which are not necessary for this Court to examine.

(3.) Sri K.P. Agarwal. learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, submits that this Court may intervene in the matter as the termination order upheld by the impugned award may come in the Petitioner's way while promotion etc. is being considered in the course of his present employment. The Court does not find the apprehension of Sri Agarwal to be justified in as much as the termination in question was termination simpliciter. It did not stigmatise the Petitioner. It is true that by way of justification for the order of termination some reasons were disclosed by the Bank before the Tribunal which were upheld. Nevertheless the order of termination remains an order of termination simpliciter. There is no reason to conclude that the order of termination will come in way to the Petitioner's promotion in the course of his present employment unless the law regulating the conditions of the present employment envisages so.