JUDGMENT By Court - The petitioner has sought quashing the order dated 30th September, 1996 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi in B.S. Case No.7 of 1993, whereby the learned Labour Court has dismissed the complaint petition filed by the petitioner under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act and Rules framed thereunder, holding that the termination of the petitioner was just and proper and he was not entitled to any relief. 2. The short facts of the case is as under: The petitioner joined the service of the Respondent No.2 as Development Officer pursuant to the appointment letter dated 28th March, 1990. The appointment was made subject to completion of probation period and compliance of some other conditions. One of the conditions was that the petitioner has to fulfill the given target of collecting premium amount fixed for the first and second year. However, the petitioner failed to fulfill the said target. The respondents, thereafter, extended the probation period by further one year from 4th April, 1992 to 3rd April, 1993. In the said extension letter, it was mentioned in the clear terms as follows: “You have to complete the premium amount of Rs.4.00 lacs in the extended period of probation while simultaneously complying with the Clause 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of appointment letter failing which your service shall stand automatically terminated from 3rd April, 1993 and no further extension shall be allowed.” 3. The admitted case is that the petitioner failed to achieve the said target and he could collect premium amount of Rs.2,938/- only as against the targeted premium of Rs.4.00 lacs. 4. In accordance with the condition of the extended probation period, services of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 3rd April, 1993. 5. The petitioner protested against the said termination by filing a complaint before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi under Section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, 1953 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the said Act') read with Rule 21. He challenged the termination on the ground that no notice nor any wages in lieu thereof was paid to the complainant prior to his termination as prescribed under Section 26 of the said Act. It was further contended that his termination was against the terms and conditions of appointment as also against the statutory provision of the said Act. He challenged the termination on the ground that no notice nor any wages in lieu thereof was paid to the complainant prior to his termination as prescribed under Section 26 of the said Act. It was further contended that his termination was against the terms and conditions of appointment as also against the statutory provision of the said Act. The petitioner was not given any chargesheet before his termination. 6. The Respondent M/s. Oriental Insurance Company opposed the petition. In written statement filed by the Company, it was, inter alia, contended that the complaint petition is not maintainable. Since termination of the services of the petitioner was in breach of condition and automatic, the same does not attract the provision of the said Act. The petitioner was employed as probationer with certain terms and conditions, but failed to fulfill the same within initial probation period of two years. The company, thereafter, extended the petitioner's probation period in special case for another one year with the condition to fulfill the terms and the target and with a clear stipulation that on failure to fulfill the target the petitioner's services shall stand automatically terminated with effect from 3rd April, 1993 and no further extension shall be allowed. It was contended that the said term was accepted and the petitioner availed the extended period of probation, but he did not comply with the terms and conditions which entailed his automatic termination in terms of the condition of the extended probation period. 7. The complaint petition was heard by learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi. The parties led their evidences and produced documents. Learned Labour Court formulated points for determination and after thorough discussion of the facts and evidences on record, Labour Court recorded its finding, holding that the complaint petition is not maintainable and that the termination of the complainant is just and proper and the complainant is not entitled to any relief. 8. The petitioner has assailed the said order of learned Labour Court mainly on two grounds: (i) The termination of the petitioner attracts the provisions of Section 26 of the said Act, as the same was without giving any notice and without giving any compensation as provided in the said Section. 8. The petitioner has assailed the said order of learned Labour Court mainly on two grounds: (i) The termination of the petitioner attracts the provisions of Section 26 of the said Act, as the same was without giving any notice and without giving any compensation as provided in the said Section. (ii) The termination of the petitioner is deliberate and malicious, as it is based on the alleged violation of the term, which is wholly unfair and unreasonable and fulfillment of the same was not practically possible. 9. Mr. Nipun Bakshi, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the extension of the period of probation was subject to achieve the targeted premium amount of Rs.4.00 lacs in a small town like Lohardaga, which is practically impossible to achieve. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner, admittedly, was employed for three years and he cannot be dismissed or discharged or otherwise terminated except for reasonable cause and after giving him at least one month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of such notice. The petitioner, who was in service for more than a year and his service was dispensed with without any charge sheet, is entitled to get compensation equivalent to 15 days' wages before his discharge in lieu of notice. He further submitted that there is no distinction between the probationer or a confirmed employee for the purpose of application of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 26 of the said Act. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Krishna Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1984 PLJR 832 and submitted that in the said case it has been held that Section 26 makes no distinction between various classes of employees, one has to be an employee under Section 2(4) of the Act. Section 26 gives protection to employees who have worked for not less than six months continuously. 10. Learned counsel next contended that the very basis of the petitioner's termination was non-fulfilment of the condition of targeted premium amount Rs.4.00 lacs, which was wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. It was impossible to fulfill the said condition and achieve that target in a small town like Lohardaga. The termination was, thus, illegal and the same attracts the provisions of Section 26 of the said Act. It was impossible to fulfill the said condition and achieve that target in a small town like Lohardaga. The termination was, thus, illegal and the same attracts the provisions of Section 26 of the said Act. Though the conditions were imposed in the letter of extension of the probation period, it could not be protested by the petitioner. He was not in a capacity to bargain with the employer. He further contended that since the termination of the petitioner is without any notice and pay in lieu of the notice of the prescribed compensation under the Act, the same is illegal and liable to be quashed. Learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate the said legal position and has erroneously dismissed the petitioner's complaint petition, upholding the illegal termination. 11. Mr. G. C. Jha, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, replying to the said allegations of the petitioner, submitted that the case of a probationer cannot be equated with the case of a confirmed or other employee. An employee, who is on probation, can be terminated, if he fails to fulfill the terms and conditions and if the performance is not satisfactory during the period of probation. No notice is required to be given before termination of his service. Admittedly, the petitioner was on probation of two years after his appointment and his appointment was subject to certain terms and conditions. One of the terms was that he has to fulfill the premium target. The petitioner failed to fulfill the premium target during the probation period of two years. As a special case, the management extended the probation period for another one year again with terms and conditions and that he has to fulfill the premium target of Rs.4.00 lacs in the extended period of the year. But he failed to fulfill the same. He further submitted that Lohardaga is the district headquarters and is not a small place and it was not impossible at all to achieve the target had the petitioner made sincere efforts to collect the targeted premium of Rs.4.00 lacs in a year. The petitioner's extension of probation period was subject to the condition of fulfilling the premium target with specific clause that his services shall be automatically terminated with effect from 3rd April, 1993, if he fails to fulfill the said target. The petitioner's extension of probation period was subject to the condition of fulfilling the premium target with specific clause that his services shall be automatically terminated with effect from 3rd April, 1993, if he fails to fulfill the said target. Learned counsel submitted that it is an automatic termination on failure of the petitioner to fulfill the conditions and to achieve the targeted premium. The said termination is, thus, neither a dismissal nor discharge nor a termination by the employer, but it was due to failure of the petitioner to perform as expected from an officer of the Company, which was one of the terms of his confirmation of his appointment. 12. Learned counsel relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in M. Venugopal Vs. The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipatnam, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1343 and submitted that the terms of the employment were clear and the petitioner was given an extended period of one year of the probation period as special case in the scope that he would come up to the expectation and fulfill the terms and conditions. He was dealt with reasonably and sympathetically, but the petitioner could not improve his performance and could not fulfill the terms of the employment. The petitioner for his termination should blame himself. There is absolutely no arbitrariness or illegality in the automatic termination of the petitioner's services. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the facts and material on record. On perusal of the order of learned Labour Court, I find that the Court has dealt with the facts and evidences in detail and has come to the finding that the termination of the petitioner is just and proper. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner, as stated above, has challenged the termination as well as the impugned order of the Labour Court on the ground that there is no difference between a probationer and confirmed employee. He has also relied on the decision of the Patna High Court in Krishna Kumar Sharma (Supra). His another ground is that the period of extension of probation for another one year was subject to an unreasonable condition of achieving premium target of Rs.4.00 lacs. 15. In my considered view, there is no substance in the said contentions. The probationer cannot be equated with a confirmed employee. A probation stands on a different footing. His another ground is that the period of extension of probation for another one year was subject to an unreasonable condition of achieving premium target of Rs.4.00 lacs. 15. In my considered view, there is no substance in the said contentions. The probationer cannot be equated with a confirmed employee. A probation stands on a different footing. 16. It is well settled that service of a probationer can be terminated after making overall assessment of his performance during the period of probation without any notice. The notice is required only if the termination is on certain charges and is punitive. 17. In M. Venugopal (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the case of a probationer, has held in clear terms that where the services of a probationer are terminated without giving any notice in terms of the contract of employment on the ground that he failed to achieve the target stipulated in the contract within the extended period of probation, his termination cannot be assailed, as the employer is empowered to refuse confirmation without giving any notice to him in case he fails to achieve the necessary target. In the said decision, it has been held that even under general law the service of a probationer can be terminated after making overall assessment of his performance during the period of probation without giving him any notice of termination. 18. The decision of the Patna High Court in Krishna Kumar Sharma (Supra) is on different facts situation. It does not deal with a probationer. It was a case of daily wager and as such is not applicable to the facts of the instant case. 19. So far as the second ground is concerned, there is no such authentic report of any expert or any other material on record to substantiate the contention that achieving a target of Rs.4.00 lacs premium was impossible and that the petitioner had accepted the same, as he was not in position to bargain. The fact remains that he had not challenged the said condition at any time during the extended period of probation or before termination of his services. Having accepted the terms and conditions and availed the extended period of probation on such term, he cannot be now heard saying that the condition was unreasonable when the petitioner failed to fulfill the stipulated terms during the extended probation period. 20. Having accepted the terms and conditions and availed the extended period of probation on such term, he cannot be now heard saying that the condition was unreasonable when the petitioner failed to fulfill the stipulated terms during the extended probation period. 20. For the above reasons, I do not find any arbitrariness, error or illegality in the impugned order of the learned Labour Court. 21. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.