HARI RAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as an operator with the Punjab Tractors Ltd. (respondent No. 2) on probation for a period of one year by an order dated July 29, 1981, the petitioner accordingly joined the service on August 7, 1981. His services were terminated on August 6, 1982, as the management found that the performance of the petitioner during the period of probation was not satisfactory. Thereupon, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court by its order dated July 31, 1985 held that the termination was justified and in order. Accordingly held that the workman was not entitled to retrenchment compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under standing order 3 of the Standing Orders of the Punjab Tractors Limited, an employee can be appointed on probation for a period of six months only which could be extended by another period of three months at a time at the discretion of the management and that the maximum period of probation shall, in no case, extend beyond one year. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the period of initial probation may be deemed to be for a period of six months only and after completion of six months period, his probation was not extended and, therefore, the management has no right to terminate the services of the employee after the expiry of six months, I cannot accept this argument. Under standing order 3-B, the probation shall be six months ordinarily. It does not mean in all cases that the period of probation can be restricted only to six months. It is open to the management while appointing a person on probation, to appoint him on probation for a period of one year which is a maximum period. "Ordinarily" it does not mean that in any case the management has no power to appoint a person on probation for a period of one year. It is not mandatory that a person shall be appointed in the initial stage on probation only for a period of six months. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the management has got a right to place an employee on probation, for a period of one year even at the time of his initial appointment. The petitioner admittedly joined the service of respondent No. 2 on August 7, 1981, and his services were terminated on August 6, 1982. Therefore, the order of termination was within one year. In this view of the matter I do not find any illegality either in the order of termination by the management or in the order of the Labour Court. I find no merit in this writ petition.