Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.48 seconds)
Surat Mahila Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs Mamtaben Mahendrabhai Joshi on 15 April, 2000 cites

V.P. Ahuja vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 6 March, 2000

24. The last contention which has been raised by learned Sr. Advocate is with respect to the fact that in reply to the approach notice given by the petitioner-Bank to the respondent, even reply to the application before the Labour Court, it was contended by the petitioner Bank that service of respondent was not satisfactory but there is nothing on record; except in two or three orders of trainee wherein some remarks have been made by the petitioner-Bank in respect to unsatisfactory working but in respect to the appointment as a Temporary employee, there was no such remark made in the orders. However, it was contended by the learned Sr. Advocate that the work of respondent was not found to be satisfactory. Undisputedly, for non-satisfactory work also, no notice or memo had been given to the respondent nor any departmental inquiry was initiated in that regard. Recently, in the matter of V. P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in 2000 AIR SC Weekly 792, it has been observed that probationer's service is also entitled to certain protection and his service cannot be terminated arbitrarily nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, if the work of the respondent was not found to be satisfactory, then it was the duty of the petitioner-Bank to hold some inquiry and afford reasonable opportunity to the respondent before terminating her services. Therefore also, the said contention with respect to unsatisfactory performance of the respondent-workman is required to be rejected, in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court; as referred to hereinabove.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 218 - Full Document
1