Important Point
Discharge of a probationer is permissible by an employer after an making over-all assessment which is not malafide. The Court cannot interfere or substitute its satisfaction with the satisfaction of the employer.

Judgment

Nanavati, J.-Leave granted.

2. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether services of the respondent, who can be said to have been appointed or probation, could not have been terminated without holding an inquiry. The High Court held that it was necessary to hold an inquiry before coming to the conclusion that he was not suitable or fit for being continued in service and as no such inquiry was held termination of his services was bad.

3. The respondent was appointed as a helper on probation. The appoint­ment letter dated 14.3.1992 stated thus:

“You are appointed for a period of 4 months on probation. If you continue in the service, this period will automatically increase for 4 months. This period will further increase for 3 months if the Man­agement does not give you in writing a letter of your confirmation and during this period or at the end, your services can be terminated without assigning any reason or giving any notice.”

On 13.2.1993 his services were terminated by an order which reads as under:

“You were appointed on probation in the service on 14.3.1992 and you are not found fit to confirm. Therefore, your services are terminated from today.”

4. The termination order was challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court. Agreeing with the contention of the appellant the Labour Court held that “there is no dispute regarding the proposition of law that termination of probationer of his services by the employer after making over-all assessment was legal and justified”. But it held that the impugned order was not an order of discharge simplicitor as it was stated in the order that the work of the respondent was not found satisfactory and, therefore, it was necessary to hold a domestic inquiry before passing the order. It, therefore, held that the termi­nation order was bad and ordered reinstatement with full back wages.

5. The appellant challenged that order before the High Court. It was contended before the High Court that as the respondent was appointed on probation it was not necessary for it to hold an inquiry before terminating his services as he was not found fit for being continued in service. The High Court also proceeded on the basis that the re­spondent was appointed on probation. But it held that his services could not have been terminated unless his work was found to be unsat­isfactory. It further held that in order to sustain the order it was necessary for the appellant to adduce evidence to show that the work of the respondent was not satisfactory. As such evidence was not led before the Labour Court or before the High Court it held that the action of the Management was arbitrary and not sustainable in law. The writ petition was, therefore, dismissed.

6. From the letter of appointment it is quite clear that the respond­ent was appointed on probation. The High Court was also inclined to take that view and for that reason it did not uphold that part of the award of the Labour Court whereby it was held that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act applies to the facts of the case. The High Court did not agree with the finding of the Labour Court that the order of termination was not an order of discharge simplicitor as it was stated in it that “you are not found fit to confirm” and, there­fore, it was necessary to hold a departmental inquiry. It, however, held that it was necessary for the appellant to produce material to show that respondent’s performance was not satisfactory and as no such material was produced the order of termination was bad. We find, as disclosed by the award of the Labour Court, that the appellant had examined two witnesses, Satish Dudeja and Om Prakash to prove that this work was not satisfactory. It was, therefore, nor correct to say that no evidence was led by the appellant to prove that the work of the respondent was not satisfactory. Both the witnesses had clearly stated that he was found negligent in his work and because of his negligence he h