NATHURAM NAMDEO Vs. STATE INDUSTRIAL COURT INDORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a bus conductor by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation on probation for a period of one month on 29th February 1976 The period of probation was extended by two months with effect from 28th March 1976. The period of probation was further extended by three months with effect from 28th May 25 1976. The petitioner's services were terminated by order dated 10th July 1976. The petitioner moved the Labour Court challenging the order of termination. The Corporation relied upon Regulation 51 of the Employees Service Regulations made under section 45 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, to support the order of termination. The Corporation also contended that the petitioner's services were terminated during the period of probation on the ground of unsatisfactory work. The Corporation produced the reports (Exs. D -1 to D -3) regarding the work of the petitioner. By order dated 22nd June 1978, the Labour Court allowed the application of the petitioner on the ground that if a person is kept on probation for a particular period, then he should be given full opportunity to prove to be worthy for retention in the job, otherwise there would be no use and purpose for fixing the probation period while appointing a man on probation. The Court further said that even assuming that the work of the petitioner was unsatisfactory, the same should have been brought to the knowledge of the petitioner so that he could improve his work before the expiry of the period of probation. On this reasoning, the Court held that the termination of the petitioner's employment before the expiry of the period of probation was a mala fide act and amounted to victimisation and unfair labour practice. The Court observed that it was not necessary for it to discuss whether the work of the petitioner was satisfactory or not because in either case the petitioner's services could not have been terminated prior to the expiry of the period of probation. In a revision filed by the Corporation, the Industrial Court by order dated 16th March 1979 came to the conclusion that the termination of the petitioner's employment was well within the power of the Corporation under Regulation 51 (b). The Industrial Court also observed that it was not necessary to bring to the notice of the petitioner the reports about his unsatisfactory work. The Industrial Court was satisfied that in view of the reports (Exs. D -1 to D -3) the petitioner's work was unsatisfactory and his services could be terminated before the expiry of the period of probation. It is this order of the Industrial Court which is challenged by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.