' The decision, dated 29-3-1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,3, Lahore at Ferozewala has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.
2. The appellant was appointed on three months' probation and his services were terminated before the completion of the said period on the ground that his work was not found satisfactory. It has been argued that the rights of the appellant were protected by the settlement, Exh. P.4 wherein it was agreed that no employee in service at the time of the execution of the deed would be retrenched without consultation with the C.B.A. The settlement does not mean that if an employee commits misconduct and his work has not been found upto the mark and he is a probationer, he cannot be terminated. No retrenchment has been made, resulting in the termination of the services of the appellant so consultation with the C.B.A. Before termination was not necessary.Exh.
P.1 shows that he was not a regular worker. He had thus no right. The order of termination is in writing and gives the reasons. So the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) do not stand violated and the order is quite legal. So far as the question of the work being unsatisfactory, is concerned, it is upto the employer to decide. There is no material on the record to show that it was wrongly said that the work of the appellant was unsatisfactory. The appellant did not say nor the witness examined by him deposed that the work of the appellant was satisfactory. The appellant knew the reason given in the order of termination but did not challenge it in his statement, which means that he accepted the ground of termination as correct. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference.
3. As a result, the appeal, being without any substance, is dismissed in limine.