Hyderabad Industries Limited, Deogarh - Petitioner
Vs
State of Jharkhand and Another – Respondent
Facts of the Case:
Respondent No. 2 Ratan Lal Kurmke was appointed as a chemist on probationary basis for a period of 1 year which was further extended for 6 months. On completion of this extended period the petitioner employer terminated his services after clearing all his dues including leave salary.
Similar facts applied even to Respondent No. 3 Rajesh Mohan but he was appointed in capacity of stock loading Assistant.
Both the respondents were dissatisfied and raised an industrial dispute. The same was referred by the State Government to Labour Court for adjudication. The Labour Court ruled in favour of respondents. It ordered reinstatement of workmen on respective posts and to pay them entire back wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement. The judgement was challenged by the petitioner before the Jharkhand High Court.
Petitioner argued that the appointment of the respondents being on probationary basis and thus no right of regularization follows even on completion of 240 days in service. Also it was argued that respondents being probationer and hence their termination during or on completion of probation period cannot be challenged under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Decision:
Hon’ble High Court setting aside the order of the Labour Court ruled in favour of the petitioner employer. It held that the termination was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the appointment order. It also stated to be a settled rule that services of a probationer can be terminated or dispensed with during or at the end of probation period without assigning any reason.
| Source:Labour Law Reporter, Pg. No. 40, Jharkhand High Court, January 2010. |
Also Check: Other Legal Aspects
 |
 |