P L D 1979 Karachi 409 (PLP)

FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.‑‑The facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent No. 1 was employed by the petitioner on 17‑9‑1971 as a Clerk‑cum‑typist on a probationary basis. Under the letter of appointment this probationary period was to last for three months during which period the parties had right to terminate the employment by giving 24 hours' notice. On 17.12‑1971 the petitioner addressed a letter to respondent No. I in which they complained that his work was not satisfactory and very much below the mark and the Management was therefore, unable to confirm him but instead of terminating his services at 24 hours' notice they were abstaining from doing so on account of abnormal circumstances prevailing in the country and avoid hardship to the respondent No. I who had assured that he will improve in his work by attending evening classes and, therefore, extended his probationary period up to 16th March 1972. This letter was accepted by the respondent No.

1. The petitioner company did not find the promised improvement forthcoming and accordingly by the letter dated 20th February 1972, terminated his services with effect from 29‑2‑1972. In terms of this letter he was paid his February salary. More than the year later, to be precise on 19th April 1972, the respondent No. 1 complained to 'the Arbitrator appointed under M. L. O. 52 of 1970, that his services had been wrongly terminated and that be had been victimized. The learned Arbitrator came to the conclusion that the extension of the probationary period was not warranted by‑the rules of the Company and accordingly held termination to be illegal and ordered his re‑instatement with all the back benefits.

2. Mr. Nizam Ahmed the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that though the petitioners had by letter dated 27‑12‑1971 purported to extend the respondent's period, this letter in fact amounted to fresh employ ment of the respondent No. 1 for which a fresh period of probation was prescribed. We are afraid, we cannot read a letter which expressly does not terminate the services of respondent No. 1, but extends his# probationary period, as a fresh letter of appointment. Be that as it may, the question that arises for our consideration is whether or not the respondent became permanent employee of the petitioner on the expiry of his first period of probation.. Under Standing Order 1 the respondent would have become a permanent workman only on satisfactory completion of the probationary, period of three months and since he had not completed this period to the satisfaction of the employer he did not become permanent. Furthermore in the present case the respondent No. 1 had accepted the extension of his probationary period, by accepting the petitioner's letter dated 17‑12‑1971.. When the petitioner did not confirm the respondent after the extended probationary period, it was not only acting in terms of the letter dated 17‑12‑1971 but even in law it was not obliged to confirm him. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be said to be an aggrieved person and the machinery of M. L. O. 52 of 1972 was clearly not available to him. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside but since the respondent No. 1 has not defended there will no order as to costs. s. a. D. Order set aside