IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 21.3.2011 (1) LPA No. 1821 of 2010 (O&M) Harinder Singh …..Appellant vs. The Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Limited and another …..Respondents (2) LPA No. 1822 of 2010 (O&M) Harinder Singh …..Appellant. vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh and ors ….Respondents CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: - Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for the appellant. HEMANT GUPTA, J CM No. 5465 of 2010 Application is allowed. Delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is condoned. LPA Nos. 1821 and 1822 of 2010 This order shall dispose of LPA No. 1821 of 2010, Harinder Singh vs. The Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank LPA No. 1821 of 2010 (O&M) Limited and another and LPA No. 1822 of 2010, Harinder Singh vs. The Union Territory of Chandigarh and others arising out of an Award of the Labour Court dated 1.2.2010 in a reference arising out the dispute raised by the appellant and in another writ petition wherein the petitioner claimed benefit of Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the ‘Act’). Appellant was appointed as a peon vide the letter of appointment dated 3.4.1998. Such appointment was on probation for a period of one year and after the expiry of the period of probation, the appellant had the liberty to leave job by giving one month notice. The Management has also right to terminate the services of the appellant by giving one month notice. It is thereafter the appellant raised an industrial dispute in respect of termination of his services. In the meantime, posts have been filled up on regular basis, therefore, the appellant claimed benefit of Section 25-H of the Act as the appellant claimed prior right of re-appointment. The learned Labour Court has declined the reference on 10.12.2008. It was held that the services of the appellant have been validly terminated in terms of the letter of appointment. The said Award has been maintained by learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge held that the employer has a right to terminate the services of the probationer. 2 LPA No. 1821 of 2010 (O&M) Reliance was placed upon a judgment dated 31.1.2002 in C.W.P. No. 17994 of 1998 titled as Jasmer Singh and ors vs. Chandigarh State Co-operative Bank Limited. The Division Bench of this Court negated the claim of the employees similarly situated as the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that Clause 2 of the appointment letter permitting the Management to terminate the services of the workman could be availed only after the expiry of one year and not during the period of probation. It is also contended that in a writ petition filed by the workman, the legality of the Award was in dispute; therefore, the learned Single Judge could not take into consideration the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court while declining the reference of the appellant. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The service of the appellant has been terminated during the period of probation. Management has a right to terminate the services in terms of Clause 1 of the appointment letter. Clause 2 became applicable in the event of successful completion of probation period. Since the probation period was not completed in the case of the appellant, therefore, the action of the Management in terminating the services of the appellant cannot be said to be illegal. It has been so found 3 LPA No. 1821 of 2010 (O&M) earlier by the Division Bench in Jasmer Singh’s case (supra) and by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Learned Labour Court has not relied upon the judgment dated 31.1.2002 of the Division Bench but the said judgment of this Court is applicable to the facts of this case referred in the case of similarly situated employees of the same Management. The learned Single Judge was bound by the judgment of this Court. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by learned Single Judge which may warrant interference in an appeal. Dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 4.3.2011 (ARVIND KUMAR) preeti JUDGE 4