BeUiaraehchi v. Vidyalankara University
Present: Wimalaratne, J.R. HETTIARACHCHI, AppeUant, and THE VIDYALANKARAUNIVERSITY, Respondent
S. G. 259170-Labour Tribunal,' 7/29762
Industrial Disputes Act—Termination of a workman’s services—Probationary periodof employment—Whether confirmation is automatic at end of probationaryperiod.
A person appointed to a post on probation cannot claim automatic confirma-tion on the expiry of tha period of probation, unless the letter of appointmentprovides that the appointee shall stand confirmed in the absence of. an orderto the contrary. If a probationer is allowed to continue on probation after theperiod of probation has expired, he continues in service as a probationer.
PPEAL from an order of a Labour Tribunal.
K.Shanmugalingam, for the applicant-appellant.
N. Satyendra, for the employer-respondent.
Cur. adv. trull
48W InlAT.ARA'I'rJB, J.—Uettiarachchi v. Vidyalankara University
November 24, 1972. Wimalakatne, J.—
The appellant A. R. Hettiarachchi was, by letter A6 dated 31.10.63,appointed Asst. Superintendent of the Vidyalankara Press. Theappointment was to be subject to one year’s probation. The letterstipulated that the period of probation may be extended for a furtherperiod of one year if the University so desired.
After serving one year the appellant, by his letter A8 dated 20.11.64,requested the Registrar to limit his probationary period to one yearand to confirm him in his appointment, but the University did not takeaction on that letter.
An entrance examination for admission to the University was to beheld in April, 1965. There was a leakage of certain question papersprinted at the University Press as a result of which that examinationhad to be cancelled and a fresh examination held. The UniversityAuthorities suspected the appellant to be the person or one of the personsresponsible for the leakage; they interdicted him and after a domesticinquiry they terminated his services from 30.9.66. The learnedPresident has held that the appellant was the person responsible for theleakage, and I am unable to say that the President was wrong in hisconclusion.
The question the learned President had to decide v;as as to whetherthe Employer was justified in. not confirming the appellant in hisappointment. It was argued in appeal that the appellant had alreadybeen confirmed because his probationary period terminated in November,1964, and that much more evidence was required before a permanentemployee’s services were terminated. Emphasis was laid on the words"if the University so desires ” in letter A6, and it was urged that as theUniversity had not informed the appellant in writing its desire to extendthe period of probation it must be assumed that the appellant wasconfirmed in his appointment in November, 1964.
The letter A6 does not provide that confirmation shall be automaticat the end of the probationary period. A8 supports the inference thatthe employee himself understood that he had not been confirmed at theend of one year. I
I am of the view that a person appointed to a post on probation cannotclaim automatic confirmation on the expiry of the period of probation,unless the letter of appointment provides that the appointee shall standconfirmed in the absence of an order to the contrary. If a probationeris allowed to continue on probation after the period of probation hasexpired, he continues in service as a probationer.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
A. R. HETTIARACHCHI, Appellant, and THE VIDYALANKARA UNIVERSITY, Respondent