PRASANTA BANARJEE Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 04.09.1998 passed by a learned Judge of the Writ Court whereby the learned Judge dismissed the writ petition holding, inter alia, that the extension of probationary period of the writ petitioner depends upon the satisfaction of the employer. Detailed facts are as follows : Pursuant to an advertisement in Aajkal, a daily Bengali newspaper, for filling up the posts of trainee Inspector of General Insurance Marketing, the writ petitioner applied and he was interviewed by the employer and sent on training. On successful completion of his training, the petitioner was appointed by Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter called 'the said Company) as a Probationary Development Officer by a provisional appointment letter dated 20.05.87. Subsequently another appointment letter was issued on 12.06.87, containing the terms of appointment. One of the terms was that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of 12 months which may be extended at the discretion of the employer for a further period not exceeding 12 months. Clause 4 of the Terms and Conditions on which emphasis was placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant during the argument is set out below for better appreciation : "4. During the probationary/extended probationary period, you will be required to fulfil the following requirements : (a) (i) You will have to procure a minimum premium income of Rs. 2.0 lacs from at least 12 clients with minimum premium of Rs. 1,000/- from each such client or alternatively from PO clients with minimum premium of Rs. 500/- from each such client."

(2.) On or about 12.08.88, the petitioner was communicated of the management decision to terminate his services. Such termination order was based on the letter dated 26.07.88 issued by the respondent No. 2.

(3.) Thereafter the petitioner made two representations in writing against the termination of his services. In answer to one of such representations, Assistant General Manager of the said company wrote back by a letter dated 29.03.90 indicating therein the reasons for the termination of the petitioner's service. Those reasons are as follows :