Gujarat High Court
Manoj Kacharabhai Zankat vs The Administrator, Agricultural ... on 10 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1593/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1593 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
MANOJ KACHARABHAI ZANKAT
Versus
THE ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET
COMMITTEE & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS.DHRUVIKA SIRODARIYA FOR MR ATIT D THAKORE(5290) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.JAYINI THAKORE FOR MR DIPAN DESAI(2481) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1 The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award
dated 16.02.2019 passed by the learned Labour
Court, Junagadh in Reference (T) No.91 of 2007,
whereby the Reference preferred by the present
petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground that
the order of termination from service was passed
during the probation period and, therefore, the
petitioner is not entitled to the protection under
Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ('the
I.D. Act' for short).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1593/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
2 It is the case of the petitioner that he was serving as
a Clerk on probation since 28.02.2006 for a period of
one year. Before completion of the probation period,
the Managing Committee passed a Resolution on
20.02.2007 to regularize his services. However, by
order dated 05.03.2007, i.e., upon completion of the
probation period, the Administrator of the APMC
terminated his services. It is the contention of the
petitioner that before passing the order of
termination, neither any show cause notice was
issued nor any inquiry was conducted, nor was the
procedure prescribed under the I.D. Act followed.
Therefore, claiming the termination to be illegal, the
petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the
learned Labour Court, Junagadh, with a prayer for
reinstatement to his original post. The respondent, in
reply, submitted that on 29.12.2006, a Notification
was issued by the State Government for bifurcation
of the APMC into two parts, namely, Veraval Taluka
and Sutrapada Taluka, and accordingly, an
Administrator was appointed by Notification dated
01.03.2007. It was contended that despite having
knowledge of the proposed bifurcation, the
Committee had illegally passed the Resolution on
20.02.2007 for regularization, i.e., prior to the
completion of the probation period. On taking charge,
the Administrator, upon finding the services of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1593/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
petitioner unsatisfactory, put an end to the same
vide order dated 05.03.2007. The learned Labour
Court, upon considering the evidence adduced by
both sides, dismissed the Reference on the ground
that the petitioner failed to establish the case of
illegal termination, vide judgment and award dated
16.02.2019, which is the subject matter of challenge
in the present petition.
3 Heard the learned advocate Ms.Dhruvika Sirodariya
for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms.Jayini
Thakore on behalf of the learned advocate Mr.Dipen
Desai for the respondent.
4 Learned advocate Ms. Sirodariya appearing for the
petitioner submits that prior to the date of
termination, the Board had already resolved to
regularize the services of the petitioner. Despite the
said Resolution, the Administrator, who did not have
the power to take a decision of terminating the
services, passed the impugned order dated
05.03.2007 terminating the services of the petitioner.
It is further submitted by the learned advocate
Ms.Sirodariya that the learned Labour Court has
committed an error in observing that the petitioner
had failed to comply with two conditions mentioned
in the appointment order, namely, furnishing of
sureties and production of a medical fitness
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1593/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
certificate. It is submitted by the learned advocate
Ms.Sirodariya that two sureties had in fact been
furnished and produced before the learned Labour
Court. However, though the medical certificate had
also been submitted at the time of appointment, the
same could not be produced before the learned
Labour Court as it was destroyed in a fire incident at
the petitioner's house. In absence of such certificate,
the learned Labour Court has erroneously passed the
impugned order.
4.1 Learned advocate Ms. Sirodariya further submits
that the petitioner was appointed on probation for
a period of one year commencing from
28.02.2006, and therefore the probation period
came to an end on 28.02.2007. The petitioner
continued to work thereafter until 05.03.2007.
Hence, the finding of the learned Labour Court that
the services came to an end upon completion of
probation is erroneous. It is contended that once
the petitioner continued in service even after
completion of the probation period, it is to be
presumed that the probation stood deemed to
have been confirmed and the services of the
petitioner were regularized in terms of the
Resolution dated 20.02.2007. On this ground also,
the impugned award deserves to be interfered
with and the petition is required to be allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1593/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
5 Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Jayini Thakore,
appearing for the respondent, submits that as per the
notification dated 29.12.2006 issued by the
Agriculture and Cooperation Department, the Board
of Directors was aware that the division of the APMC
was effected, and consequently, an Administrator
came to be appointed on 01.03.2007. Learned
advocate Ms. Thakore submits that though the
petitioner was appointed on 28.02.2006, he actually
took charge on 04.03.2006, and therefore, his
probation period was completed on 04.03.2007. On
completion of the probation period, his services were
accordingly terminated. It is further submitted by the
learned advocate Ms. Thakore that under the terms
of appointment, the petitioner was required to furnish
a surety bond and produce a medical fitness
certificate, which he failed to comply with. Learned
advocate Ms. Thakore also submits that the
petitioner did not possess adequate knowledge of
computers and the internet, and though he was
directed to undergo training on 11.10.2006, he failed
to do so. In absence of such skills, his performance
was found unsatisfactory, and therefore, the learned
Labour Court rightly held that an employee appointed
on probation is not entitled to protection under
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1593/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Learned advocate Ms. Thakore submits that the
Labour Court, after assigning cogent and convincing
reasons, dismissed the Reference, and hence no
interference is warranted. The petition, therefore,
deserves to be dismissed.
6 Having considered the submissions advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and
upon examining the record, it emerges that as per
the case of the petitioner, he was appointed on
probation on 28.02.2006 on the post of Clerk for a
period of one year. On perusal of the appointment
order it reveals that under Condition Nos. 6 and 7,
upon resuming duty, the petitioner was required to
furnish a medical fitness certificate from a registered
medical practitioner and execute two surety bonds.
According to the respondent, these mandatory
conditions were not fulfilled by the petitioner. On the
other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that both
requirements were complied with through the
management. The petitioner admitted that both
documents were not part of the record before the
learned Labour Court initially. Subsequently, the
surety bond produced by the petitioner was found to
have been executed on 31.01.2008, i.e., after the
completion of the probation period. As regards the
medical certificate, the petitioner failed to produce
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1593/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
the same and explained that it was destroyed in a
fire at his residence. Nevertheless, no evidence was
adduced to establish that such a certificate was ever
submitted to the respondent prior to completion of
the probation period. In these circumstances, the
Labour Court was justified in concluding that the
petitioner failed to comply with the conditions
stipulated in the appointment order.
7 The next contention of the petitioner is that since he
was appointed on 28.02.2006, his probation period
would come to an end on 28.02.2007 and, as his
services were discontinued from 05.03.2007, his
services ought to be treated as regularized pursuant
to the Resolution passed by the Board of Directors on
20.02.2007. To examine this contention, the
evidence of the petitioner is required to be
considered. In his cross-examination, the petitioner
has admitted that his probation period was to be
completed on 04.03.2007 as he had actually taken
charge on 04.03.2006. He further admitted that prior
to completion of his probation period, on 19.02.2007
he had submitted an application and on 20.02.2007
the Board of Directors passed a Resolution to
regularize his service on completion of the probation
period. However, it is also admitted that no further
orders pursuant to the said Resolution were ever
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1593/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
passed. It is also pertinent to note that the Resolution
was passed even before the probation period had come
to an end. The learned advocate Ms. Jayini Thakore has
rightly placed reliance on the Notification dated
29.12.2006 issued by the Agriculture and Cooperative
Department, State of Gujarat, whereby APMC Junagadh
came to be bifurcated into two parts i.e. Junagadh and
Sutrapada. This fact was well within the knowledge of the
Board of Directors of APMC, Veraval. Thereafter, with
effect from 01.03.2007, an Administrator was appointed,
and consequently the Board of Directors ceased to have
powers to pass any order affecting the administration of
the APMC. Despite this, the Board, with full knowledge of
such developments, passed the Resolution dated
20.02.2007 to regularize the services of the petitioner
before expiry of the probation period.
8 This Court has referred the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Krishnadevaraya Education
Trust Versus L.A.Balakrishna, reported in (2001) AIR
SCW 253, wherein it is held that ordinarily the services
of an employee on probation may be terminated if he is
found unsuitable for the post, without assigning any
reasons, and it is generally preferred that the order itself
does not disclose the reasons. However, if such an order
is subjected to challenge, the employer would be
required to indicate the grounds on which the services of
the probationer were terminated. It has been
categorically held that a probationer is on test, and if his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1593/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
services are found unsatisfactory, the employer, in terms
of the appointment order, has the right to terminate such
services. It is further held that the Court cannot
substitute its own satisfaction in place of the satisfaction
of the employer while deciding whether the period of
probation is to be extended or whether the employee
should be confirmed in service upon completion of the
probation period. It is for the employer alone to take such
a decision, and therefore, non-renewal of the probation
period resulting in termination of service can neither be
said to be retrenchment nor can it be said to be by way
of punishment.
9 In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the learned
Labour Court has rightly held that since no orders were
passed in furtherance of the said Resolution and as the
Administrator, upon assuming charge, passed the order
discontinuing the services of the petitioner, no
interference is called for.
10 It is true that though the respondent had filed his chief
examination, he did not remain present for cross-
examination and, therefore, his chief examination was
discarded from the record. However, when the petitioner
has himself failed to establish his case on its own merits,
the mere fact that the respondent did not adduce any
oral evidence would not have any bearing on or alter the
correctness of the impugned order.
11 In the case of Municipal Corporation, Faridabad v.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1593/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
Siri Niwas, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 195, the Apex
Court held that in order to establish continuous service as
defined under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, the burden lies upon the workman.
12 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court is of the view that no error has been
committed by the learned Labour Court in dismissing the
Reference. Hence, the present petition, being devoid of
merit, is hereby dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
