Sat Pal vs The Associate Vice President, Human Resources Swaraj Foundry Division and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The impugned Award of the Labour Court, Patiala warrants no interference in writ proceedings.

On April 2, 1984, the petitioner--Sat Pal was employed as helper on ad hoc basis for a fixed term of six months. By efflux of time, this appointment came to an end on September 30, 1984. In the meanwhile, however, the post held by the petitioner was made permanent and the petitioner was consequently offered regular appointment to the post held by him. The petitioner accepted this appointment and joined duty on October 9, 1984. In terms of this appointment, the petitioner was kept on probation for six months. During his period of probation, however, the petitioner''s work was not found to be satisfactory as would be apparent from the Performance Appraisal Form, annexure R/3 (before the Labour Court). Petitioner''s services were, on that account, terminated on April 2, 1985.

The petitioner had no doubt been employed for a continuous period of more than a year, but it will be seen that in the first instance, it was only an ad hoc appointment for six months and thereafter he worked against a permanent post on probation for another period of six months and it was on account of his unsatisfactory performance of work that his services were terminated during the period of his probation. It is now well-settled as held in G.M. Jitendra Kumar v. The Management of Bharat Earth Movers Ltd. 1985 L. I. C. 1833 that termination of services in pursuance of a clause in the service agree meat, during the period of probation for unsatisfactory work and conduct falls within the exception provided under Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The provisions of Section 25F of the Act are thus not attracted to the petitioner.

Such being the situation here, no exception can indeed be taken to the impugned award of the Labour Court which is accordingly upheld and affirmed and this writ petition is thus hereby dismissed. In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.