An employee appointed on probation for a specific period continues to be in service as a probationer even after the period expires unless the employer confirms or terminates the services.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - PROBATIONER - AUTOMATIC TERMINATION - VICITIMISATION - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - S. 2(K), 10(1)(C) - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, ART. 226 - LETTERS PATENT (MADRAS), CL. 15 - SUMMARY - The High Court was right in rejecting the Management's contention that there was an automatic termination of Mr. Bobb's services after August 28, 1957. The Labour Court's finding on the question of victimisation was not liable to interference by the High Court.
Fact of the Case:

Brian Bobb, a working journalist, was appointed as Chief Sub-Editor of the Indian Express at Madurai on probation for six months. Before the probation period expired, he was informed that his services were being terminated due to unsatisfactory work. The Madras Union of Journalists raised an industrial dispute, alleging that the termination was mala fide and intended to victimise Bobb for his involvement in union activities.
Finding of the Court:

The Labour Court found that the termination of Bobb's services was a clear case of victimisation and directed his reinstatement with back wages. The High Court upheld the Labour Court's order, rejecting the Management's contention that there was an automatic termination of Bobb's services after the probation period expired and that the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in directing reinstatement with back wages.
Issues: 1. Whether the termination of Bobb's services was mala fide and intended to victimise him for his union activities. 2. Whether the High Court erred in upholding the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with back wages.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court was right in rejecting the Management's contention that there was an automatic termination of Bobb's services after the probation period expired. An employee appointed on probation for six months continues as a probationer even after the period of six months if at the end of the period his services had either not been terminated or he is confirmed. 2. The Labour Court's finding on the question of victimisation was not liable to interference by the High Court. The High Court has not only found no such error but has gone further and indicated its support of that finding.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. : The industrial dispute out of which this appeal has arisen was referred by the Government of Madras in these terms:-

"Whether the discharge of Sri Brian Bobb and Sri C. Sampath is justified and to what relief they are entitled?

In this appeal we are concerned only with the case of Brian Bobb. This gentleman appears to have been a working journalist for many years. He was employed formerly as News Editor of the Morning News, Dacca, in Pakistan. He had to give up that post on the refusal of the Pakistan Government to renew his visa. He then requested Shri R. N. Goenka, Chairman of the Express News-papers Ltd., Madras, for an appointment on the editorial staff on any of the group of newspapers under his control and ultimately was appointed as Chief Sub-Editor of the Indian Express at Madurai. Mr. Brain Bobb joined the post on February 28, 1957. The appointment was on probation, the term being thus expressed in the appointment letter dated February 11, 1957:

"Your appointment will in the first instance be on probation for six months. If during this period we find you satisfactory and you find the job suitable we will confirm you.

2. Before however six months expired Mr. Bobb received a letter dated July 11, 1957 in these terms:-

"We regret to inform you that we have found your work unsatisfactory and that we are compelled to terminate your probation. Your accounts will be settled forthwith.

3. The Madras Union of Journalists took up Mr. Bobb s case and raised the present dispute on the termination of his service.

4. It is necessary to mention that only six days before this, viz., on July 5, 1957 Mr. Bobb had been elected President of the Madurai Branch of the Madras Union of Journalists.

5. The main contention of the Union was that the termination of Mr. Bobb s services was mala fide and intended really to victimise him for taking a leading part in the formation of the Madurai Branch of Madras Union of Journalists and consenting to be elected President of that Branch.

6. The Management of the \express \News-papers pleaded in reply that Mr. Bobb having been appointed only as a probationer the termination of his services for unsatisfactory work was well within the rights of the Management.

7. The Labour Court came to the conclusion on a consideration of the circumstances that the termination of Mr. Bobb s services was a clear case of victimisation and directed his reinstatement with back wages from the date of termination.

8. Against this order of the Labour Court the High Court of Madras was moved by the Management under Art. 226 of the Constitution.

9. The main contentions urged before the High Court in support of the application were: (1) that the finding of the Labour Court regarding victimisation was vitiated by an apparent error, and (2) that as the services of an employee who was on probation for a period of six months could have been terminated at the need of that period without giving rise to any claims, the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the reinstatement of the employee with back wages and should at the most have awarded to the workmen the relief of wages for the period July 11, 1957 to August 28, 1957. Mr. Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar, who heard this petition rejected both these contentions, holding in the first place that the Labour Court had committed no error in the appreciation of either the oral or documentary evidence and further that while the services of the employee might have been terminated at the end of the period of six months if the employer so desired ,they would continue as on probation if not put an end to until the employee was confirmed. Accordingly, the learned Judge refused to issue any writ and rejected the application.

10. The appeal preferred against this order under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent was also dismissed.

11. It is against this order of dismissal that the present appeal has been filed by the Management in this Court after obtaining special leave.

12. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document