- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Appeal No.813 of 2007 In Writ Petition No.1398 of 2004 Smt.Laxmi Gupta .. .. Appellant (Org.Respondent) Vs. M/s.V.H.B.Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd. .. . Respondent (Org.Petitioner) -- Shri N.M.Ganguli for the Appellant. Shri P.C.Pavaskar for the Respondent. -- CORAM : SRI R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR & SRI A.V.NIRGUDE, JJ DATED : 16TH APRIL, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard. This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 1st August, 2006 passed in the Writ Petition No.1398 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the petition was allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court directing payment of compensation has been set aside. 2. The appellant herein was appointed as the - 2 - Professional Sales Executive on probation by the respondent with effect from 1st March, 1996 and continued to work so till January, 1997. On 13th January, 1997, her services were terminated. The dispute was sought to be raised and was accordingly referred to the Labour Court wherein the Labour Court by an award dated 20th October, 2003 held that the appellant was deemed to have been confirmed in the employment on completion of six months probation period, and therefore, termination of services was illegal, however, on account of the fact that she did not hold requisite educational qualification, the Labour Court refused to grant the order of reinstatement and instead directed the payment of compensation of Rs.2,06,800/-. Being aggrieved, the respondent herein challenged the order by way of writ petition before the learned Single Judge which came to be allowed by the impugned judgment. 3. The records apparently disclose that the finding of the Labour Court that there was deemed confirmation was contrary to the statement of fact made by the appellant herself in the course of her testimony. She had admitted before the Labour Court that her probation period was extended by the letter dated 26th August, 1996. In other words, the finding - 3 - by the Labour Court about the deemed confirmation of the appellant was totally contrary to the materials on record. It is settled law that unless the terms of the agreement between the employer and the employee or statutory provisions by which service conditions are governed specifically provide that on completion of probation period the employee would stand confirmed, there has to be a specific confirmation by the employer. Undisputedly, in the case in hand, there was no such confirmation, and on the contrary, the probation period was specifically extended. It is not in dispute that there was no agreement between the parties to the effect that in the absence of specific confirmation, the appellant would be deemed to have been confirmed in the service. 4. In the above circumstances, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the finding of the Labour Court which was totally contrary to the materials on record. Once it is a matter of record that the probation period of the appellant was extended after the expiry of six months’ initial period of probation and during subsistence of the extended probation period, her services were terminated on being found unsatisfactory for the said - 4 - job, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, and hence there is no case made out for interference therein. The appeal therefore is liable to be summarily dismissed and is accordingly summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J ) ( A.V.NIRGUDE, J )