DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 2-4-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No,I, whereby the grievance petition filed by the respondent was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated with full back benefits.
2. I have heard Mr. S. Muzaffar Imam, Assistant Law Officer, KDA, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Ehsan Ellahi, learned representative for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the respondent was admittedly appointed as a helper by the appellants on 8-9-1985. His services were terminated by order, dated 24-11-1988. He challenged the order in Grievance Petition No,11 of 1989, before the learned Labour Court which was allowed by the learned Labour Court No,I vide order, dated 14-5-1989. No appeal was filed by the appellants against the order and the respondent was reinstated in service. His services were again terminated vide order, dated 2-9-1989 under Article 37(a) of the KDA (Employees Service)
Regulations, 1973 (hereinafter called the 'Regulation') as his work and conduct had remained unsatisfactory during the probationary period. After serving the grievance notice upon the appellants the respondent filed grievance petition in the learned Labour Court which was resisted by the appellants.
4. Admittedly the services of the respondent are governed by the aforementioned Regulations/Rules and, therefore, Standing Orders would not be applicable to the case of the respondent. Under Regulation 20 'every appointee on his first appointment shall be required to remain on probation for the prescribed period in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV'.
Under Regulation 36 of Chapter IV the period of probation would be two years. Under Regulation 38 'if the work or conduct of an employee, on completion of the period of probation is found unsatisfactory the competent authority may dispense with his services without notice or extend the period of probation by an additional period of not more than one year at a time and not more than two years in all'. Under Rule 39 'on completion of the period of probation of an employee the competent authority may pass orders declaring that he had completed his probationary period satisfactorily and if no such orders are made by the competent authority by the day following the completion by the employee of the initial period of probation the said period shall be deemed to have been extended by two years unless specially terminated by the competent authority.
5. The initial period of probation of respondent expired on 7-9-1987 but apparently no order extending the period of probation was passed as required under Regulation 38(e). Instead the appellants terminated the services of the respondent on 24-11-1988. After his reinstatement as ordered by the learned Labour Court the period of his probation was further extended for two years vide order, dated 15-8-1989 and during extended period of probation his services were terminated by order, dated 2-9-1989.
6. The authority had the power under Regulation 38(c) to extend the period of probation by an additional period of not more than one year at a time and not more than two years in all. The alleged order of the authority dated 15-8-1989 extending the period of probation of the respondent for two years is obviously illegal. However, admittedly no order as contemplated under Regulation No, 39(1)(a) was passed declaring the respondent had completed his probationary period satisfactorily. Therefore the period of probation automatically stood extended by two years under Regulation No,39(1)(b) and as such the respondent would be deemed to be on probation upto 7- 9-1989 whereas his services have been terminated on 2-9-1989 viz. Within the period of his extended probation. Letter of termination of the services of the respondent shows that his services were terminated because his work and conduct was found unsatisfactory. Under Regulation 37 'if the work and conduct of an employee during the period of probation has been found unsatisfactory, the competent authority may, notwithstanding that the period of probation has not expired (a) if the employee has been appointed by initial recruitment, dispense with his services without notice.' It would be clear from the above discussion that before the expiry of the extended period of probation the competent authority dispensed with services of the respondent on the ground that his conduct and work was not found satisfactory which was in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the services of the respondent and no notice was necessary. However, he has been allowed fortnight's pay in lieu of notice as per term 6 of his letter of appointment which reads as under:- "The appointment is terminable at a fortnight's notice on either side without assigning reason thereof."
7. The order of termination of service is absolutely legal and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and in accordance with the terms of the appointment of the respondent. As such I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court.