Termination of a probationer's services based on unsatisfactory work does not necessarily cast a stigma on the employee, and deemed permanency must flow from an act or statute.

Per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. :-

1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective sides.

2. Rule.

3. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.

4. The petitioner, by this petition, seeks to challenge his termination by order dated 29th of May 2014 passed by the 2nd respondent - Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Mumbai. By the impugned order dated 29th of May 2014, the services of the petitioner on probation have been terminated on account of unsatisfactory work.

5. The petitioner contends that he came to be appointed as a Stenographer (Lower Grade), with the Labour Court at Thane. His order of appointment is dated 10th of September 2012. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was on probation for a period of one year. It is also not in dispute that his services, as a probationer, could be terminated without prior notice and without assigning any reasons.

6. The petitioner submits that his services were transferred, by order dated 17th of January 2003 by the respondent No. 2, from Thane to Ratnagiri citing administrative exigencies. He was relieved from his posting at Thane by order dated 21st of January 2013. He joined duties as per the transfer order with the respondent No. 3 Labour Court at Ratnagiri. It is noteworthy that the communication dated 17th of January 2013 issued by the competent authority to the petitioner evidences the fact that he was transferred on his request and he was given an ultimatum to improve his performance as a stenographer and typist. He was intimated that he was being given a last opportunity for improving his performance.

7. The petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 29th of May 2014, the competent authority terminated his services on grounds of unsuitability / unsatisfactory work. He was relieved from his employment, as a probationer, with effect from 31st of May 2014. The petitioner, therefore, submits that his termination is stigmatic. The impugned termination order attributes a stigma to his performance.

8. In the above backdrop, the petitioner contends that his termination amounts to dismissal from service without conducting any disciplinary enquiry against him. He had been working with the 2nd respondent as a stenographer in an efficient manner. He was not issued with any memo or show cause notice on account of any shortcomings or a misconduct. He had accepted his transfer without any protest and had reported for his duties with the 3rd respondent.

9. The petitioner therefore submits that having been appointed as a probationer for one year on 10th of September 2012, he had completed his probation period successfully on 10 September 2013. He therefore contends that having completed one year's probation period and having been continued even thereafter, he had attained the deemed status of a permanent employee. According to him, his services stood confirmed with effect from 10th of September 2013. As such, having attained the deemed status of a permanent employee, he could not have been terminated, by the impugned order, without issuing any charge sheet or show cause notice. The impugned termination order therefore suffers from illegality, primarily on the ground of being a stigmatic order and also on account of the respondents failing to conduct a disciplinary proceeding against him in order to prove the charge of unsatisfactory performance.

10. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of V.P.Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and others (AIR 2000 SC 1080). It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has viewed the termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory work as being a stigmatic order.

11. It is therefore submitted that the impugned termination order is rendered illegal and unsustainable. The respondents are at liberty to issue a charge sheet to the petitioner for having allegedly performed in an unsatisfactory manner and the petitioner is prepared to face a disciplinary proceeding as well a