ANDHRA BANK HYDERABAD Vs. CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On reference, the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Hyderabad considered whether the Management of Andhra Bank, Hyderabad, is justified in reverting Sri K. Suryanarayana from the post of Clerk to the post of Sub-Staff with effect from 1/10/1976; if not, to what relief the workman is entitled ? The Reference was registered as I.D. No. 30/82. The employee joined the service as peon in the year of 1946. He was promoted to the clerical post on 31/12/1975 and he completed six months probation period by 30/06/1976. Thereafter his probation was extended by three months on the ground of unsatisfactory work by the Regional Manager, Warangal. On 1/10/1976, the employee received orders from the Central Office stating that he was depromoted and reverted as peon. According to him, the Manager of Warangal branch as well as the Regional Manager of Warangal have recommended his case to the Central Office to restore him to the clerical cadre with immediate effect, but the Management refused to accept the same. As per Para 495 of Sastry Award, the probation must be deemed to have been completed on completion of six months. The case of the Management is that the Reference is outside the scope of Section 10(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act as it is not a pending matter or a live issue. The nature of performance of an employee can only be noticed by the employer who has to get the work done and the concerned persons had to deal with constituents of banks and a person who is not qualified for the post cannot be expected to deal with constituents of the bank in a satisfactory manner. The allegation that the employee completed his probation by 30/06/1976 is not correct. He was only promoted provisionally as a clerk on 31/12/1975 and he was informed that this services were not satisfactory and the probation period was extended by three months and as no improvement was shown and on the other hand when in became worse, the bank found the conduct of the workman unsatisfactory and therefore reverted him to sub-staff cadre with effect from 29/09/1976. The workman himself was examined as WW-1 and got marked Exs W-1 to W-12. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the management and the management got marked Exs. M-1 to M-10. The Presiding Officer came to the conclusion that the matter can be considered inspite of the fact that the workman was reverted a early as in the year 1976. He also found that the workman is entitled for reinstatement. It is against that, the Management has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Sri Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the Management, contended that the mere fact that a person was kept on probation does not mean that he has got a right to be confirmed immediately after completion of six months probation. The 2nd respondents performance during the period of probation was not satisfactory and the same was extended by three more months as per the terms and conditions of service. He did not show any improvement even during the period of probation and on the other hand, his performance was becoming worse and as the bank found that the conduct and work of the employee was unsatisfactory, he was reverted back as sub-staff with effect from 29/09/1976.

(3.) It must be noted here that the Tribunal took into consideration the reversion and held that apart from protesting the extension of probation period by three months from 12/07/1976, the individual concerned made a representation on 10/12/1980 and the Union also has taken up his cause on 6/07/1981. Many other aspects have come out in evidence about the conduct of the employee. It is not on account of the employees bad or misconduct outside the bank premises, the period of probation has been extended. The probation period of three months more has been extended on account of inefficiency of work. Para 495 of Sastrys Award also contemplates that in the case of persons whose work is not found to be quite satisfactory during the said period but who are likely to improve and give satisfaction if a further opportunity is given to them, the period may be extended by three months provided due notice in writing is given to them and their consent in writing is obtained before the extension of their period of probation. In all other cases probationers after the expiry of six months should be deemed to have been confirmed, unless their services are dispensed with on or before the expiry of the period of probation. The very fact that the employee was shifted from one section to the other section during the period indicates that the management wanted to try him in different positions and it is the objective satisfaction of the officers concerned that has to be taken into consideration. MW-2 is the person that spoke about the activities of the employee. After a long lapse of nearly 10 years, we cannot expect him to narrate in detail as to what has happened minutely. There is no necessity for MWs. 1 or 2 to speak falsehood against the employee. On the other hand, the evidence of MWs. 1 and 2 and the documents filed on behalf of the management clearly shows that on account of not satisfactorily completing the probation period of six months, the period was again extended by three months. The information about the conduct of the employee and about his performance has been elicited by the Central Office through phone. When six months period was going to be expired, definitely the Central Office is at liberty to contact on phone and extend the period of probation. Merely because the Central Office has contacted on phone and the orders were issued subsequent to six months it does not mean that the employee is automatically entitled to confirmation in that post. The petitioner was reverted to the original post of sub-staff in the year 1976 and the matter has been referred in the year 1982. The decisions relied upon before the and Shalimar Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1959-II-LLJ-26) have not been properly considered by the Tribunal. It is a stale act. The allegation that because the employee was indulging in union activities his probation was extended and he was reverted to his original post is not correct. The respondent herein took contrary stands. After long lapse of six years, this matter has been taken up by the union. Even though no limitation has been prescribed, it has been pointed out that in the case of long delay, it can be said to be a stale incident and the reference after six years is bad. The Tribunal was under the impression that the proceedings have to be initiated even in the case of reversion of a probationer. Keeping an employee in probation is only to find out whether he is suitable for that post, or not. The extension of probation indicates that the management was not satisfied with the services of the employee and wanted to test him during the extended period also. The Supreme Court has pointed out that in case of termination of services during or at the end of the probation, there is no necessity to institute any proceedings. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon State of Gujarat v. Sharadchandra (1988-II-LLJ-97).