Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

As per the clause no. 4 of the above mentioned letter, due to unsatisfactory performance your services are hereby being terminated with immediate effect.

SD/ (AMOD SHARMA) CC: RM (HR) SUPERVISOR (M.T.) PERSONAL FILE"

7. Undisputedly, the appellant was initially appointed on temporary and contractual basis from time to time by the respondent since 29 th July, 1986 and he was being issued appointment letters appointing him as driver on monthly basis for a period of 1 to 3 months. Subsequently vide letter dated 29th June, 1987, he was appointed as a regular driver on probation for a period of one year initially and in case his services were not found satisfactory, the management could either extend his probation or terminate his services. Relying upon clause 4 of the appointment letter, his services were terminated as his performance was not found to be satisfactory. Termination of service of the appellant on account of „unsatisfactory performance‟ was not considered to be stigmatic relying upon Muir Mills Unit of NTC (UP) Ltd. vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr., 2007 II AD (SC) 32; State of Punjab vs. Bhagwan Singh, (2002) 9 SCC 636; Abhijit Gupta vs. SNB National Centre, Basic Sciences and Others, 2006 V AD (SC) 525 and Chaitanya Prakash and Anr. vs. H. Omkarappa, 2010 II LLJ 146 (SC). This finding of the learned Single Judge has not been challenged by the appellant either in the grounds of appeal or during the course of argument and rightly so, as mere use of word "unsatisfactory performance" does not make the termination order stigmatic.

17. In the instant case also, the appellant was not conferred with the status of confirmed employee. From Clause 4 of the letter of appointment, it cannot be inferred that after expiry of period of probation for a period of one year, the petitioner got the status of a confirmed employee. Since, he was still on probation, and in terms of Clause 4 of the Appointment Letter, his services have been terminated in view of his „unsatisfactory performance‟ same does not tantamount to „retrenchment‟ within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act.