Letters Patent Appeal No.768 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.768 of 2011 Date of decision: 2.5.2011 Atma Prashad Singh ...Appellant Versus Managing Committee and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 9.2.2011 setting aside the award of the Labour Court in favour of the appellant. 2. The appellant was employed as Mali-cum-chowkidar by the management of the respondent school. He joined service on 1.10.2000 and his services were terminated on 31.3.2002. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court claiming violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). His claim was contested on the ground that his termination was on account of unsatisfactory completion of probation period which did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act. The Labour Court held that period of probation being one year, workman had to be treated to be confirmed on expiry of one year and thus held termination to be illegal and directed reinstatement with 30% back wages from the date of demand Letters Patent Appeal No.768 of 2011 -2- **** notice. The plea of the management of the period of probation having been extended by six months vide letter dated 24.9.2001 was rejected. 3. The management having filed a writ petition in this Court, learned Single Judge held that services of workman were governed by the Punjab Privately Managed Recognised Schools Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) and under the said Rules, there was no automatic confirmation. Even after expiry of the period of probation, Rule 8(3) of the Rules required assessment of work and conduct before order of confirmation is passed. In support of the said interpretation of the Rules, reliance was placed on judgments in State of U.P. and others Vs. Rejendra Kumar Singh and another 1998 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 1536, Director, Ministry of Coal and others Vs. Bimlendu Kumar (1997) 2 Supreme Court Cases 217, M.Venugopal Vs. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, Andhra Pradesh and another AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1343, Anita Sharma, S.S.Mistress Vs. State of Haryana and others 2009(2) RSJ 153 and The Management S.D.High School for Boys, Nabha, District Patiala Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and another 2010(1) S.C.T. 629. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the letter of extension of period of probation was not received by the petitioner and there is no finding of learned Single Judge on this aspect. According to the learned counsel, the said letter was a forged one. The Labour Court held that the said letter was never served on the workman. 6. We are unable to accept this submission. Learned Single Judge has categorically held that even in absence of extension of period of probation, there was no automatic confirmation on expiry of period of one Letters Patent Appeal No.768 of 2011 -3- **** year and till the passing of order of confirmation after assessment of the work and conduct, the workman could not be treated to have been confirmed in service in view of the law laid down in the judgments referred to above. The legal position is not being disputed by learned counsel for the workman. No attempt has been made to distinguish the judgments relied upon in the impugned order. Thus, even if the question whether letter of extension was validly served or not has not been gone into, the fact remains that services of workman were never confirmed and concept of deemed confirmation does not apply under the scheme of the relevant rules. 7. In this view of the matter, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. 8. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 02, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge