Siri Jagan, J.

The issue involved in these writ appeals is common and these writ appeals arise out of a common judgment in two original petitions disposed of by a learned single Judge. The original petitions were filed by the management challenging the common award of the Industrial Tribunal. Alappuzha in two industrial disputes viz. I.D.Nos.85/2000 and 59/2000. The two awards dealt with identical issues regarding termination of two workmen. These two workmen were appointed by identical appointment orders. Such appointment was on probation for a period of one year. However, even before the completion of the one year period of probation, their services were terminated on the ground that their performance during the period of service was not satisfactory. The Industrial Tribunal held that termination of service of the workmen before the completion of the period of probation was illegal and unsustainable, directing their reinstatement as probationers with continuity of service, back wages and consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge confirmed the award. The management is challenging the said judgment of the learned single judge upholding the awards of the Industrial Tribunal.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The contention of the appellant is that when employees are appointed on probation for a specific period, it is not necessary that they should be allowed to continue in service even if the management comes to the conclusion that their performance was not satisfactory even during the first few months of the period of probation. According to learned counsel for the appellant management, if it is held otherwise, the same would be against the basic concept of probation and the management would be saddled with an unfit employee for the entire period of probation without any corresponding benefit to the management. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-workman, relying on the decision of the supreme court in Express Newspapers v. Labour Court, Madras and another. Reported in 1964 (1) LLJ 9. Would contend that an appointment on probation for one year does not give the employer a right to terminate the service of an employee before the expiry of one year except on the ground of misconduct or other sufficient reasons in which case even the services of the permanent employee could be terminated.

4. On due consideration of the rival contentions we are of opinion that the Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned single judge was in error in holding that the management had no right to terminate the services of a probationer before the expiry of the probation period. The very object of probation is to enable the management to assess the suitability of the employee for the establishment during the period of probation. In certain given circumstances, the suitability or otherwise can be ascertained by the management even before the full period of probation. If the management comes to the conclusion that the employee is not suitable for the establishment within the first few months of the period of probation, it would be unreasonable and unjust to probation, it would be unreasonable and unjust to force the management to continue to employ the employee despite his prescribed is a longer period. In fact such a view would militate against the very concept of probation. Once the management comes to the conclusion that the particular employee is not suitable, it would be unjust to saddle the management with a dead wood and continue to pay him simple because the period of probation has not yet completed. In fact, it may even affect the performance of other employees and even the overall output of the establishment itself.

5. In this connection, it must be borne in mind that the period of probation is not a minimum period, but only a maximum period. An employee is put on probation for a maximum period during which time the employee is suitable