(1.) The sole point for decision in this writ petition is whether the services of a Bank employee can be terminated before the expiry of his probationary period.
(2.) On 13th August, 1962 Devinder Pal Verma, respondent No. 3, was appointed a Junior Assistant-cum-Typist by the petitioner, State Bank of Patiala, on probation for a period of six months and it was stipulated that this period might be extended at the discretion of the Bank. In pursuance of this appointment, respondent No. 3 joined the service of the petitioner at its Nakodar Branch with effect from 18th August, 1962. His initial period of probation was due to expire on 18th February, 1963. Since his work was not found to be satisfactory, and it was noticed that the was taking poor interest in the same, his period of probation was extended by a further period of three months on 28th January, 1963 with effect from 18th February, 1963. It was specifically mentioned in the office order dated 28th January, 1963 that in case he did not show proper aptitude for learning his work and same was not found up to the required standard, his services would be terminated. Although full opportunity was given to respondent No. 3 to learn his work, it was not found up to the mark in spite of the extension in his probationary period and as he had not shown any aptitude to learn the same, his services were terminated on 30th April, 1963. It was, however, ordered that he should be paid one month's pay in lieu of the notice period as required under Section 22(1) of the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958. Thereupon, the State Bank of Patiala Employees Union (Registered), Nakodar, respondent No. 4 took up the cause of respondent No. 3 and as a result an industrial dispute was raised, which was referred by the Union of India, respondent No. 1, to the Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, respondent No. 2. On 27th February, 1965 respondent No. 2 gave his award and held the termination of services of respondent No. 3 to be invalid and directed the petitioner-Bank to reinstate him on his old job with continuity of and without any charge in the conditions of his service. Respondent No. 2 came to the conclusion that the services of respondent No. 3 could not be terminated before the expiry of the probationary period except on the ground of misconduct or other sufficient reasons in which case even the services of a permanent employee could be terminated. This award is being challenged by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by the State Bank of Patiala.
(3.) It is common ground that under the ordinary law of master and servant, an employee's services can be terminated on or before the expiry of the probationary period. However, in a case, which is covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, the Supreme Court in The Management of the Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. Madurai V/s. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and another, has held thus -