Sambasiva Rao, J. - (1.) The amplitude of Sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 33C of the INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 is the main concern of this writ appeal, which is directed against the decision of Obul Reddi. J (as he then was), allowing Writ Petition No. 4815/1971.
(2.) The appellant is an employee of the Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd., Vijayanagaram. According to his case, he joined the service of the bank as clerk in the year 1959. The eafter, he was sent for the requisite training and on 1-10-1964. the bank declared his probation. Placing his reliance on bye-law of the bank, he filed M. P. No. 200/1969 before the Labour Court, Guntur under Sec. 33C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, c aiming that his probation should have been declared w th effect from 15-6-1960, i.e., on the expiry of one year after his joining the service of the bank. The ground on which the petition was filed by him is that the bank authorities were bound to declare his probation on the completion of one year's service and confirm him in the post, since he had joined service on 15-6-1959 and his period of probation was completed on 15-6-1960. The latter was the date on which the said declaration should have been made and that was the requirement of bye-law No, 6 also. He also disputed the view of the authorities of the bank that untill he had acquired his qualification, the declaration of his probation could not be made. He also referred to the circumstance that in some instances such declarations had been made by the bank without the qualification. Having stated all this in the petition, he prayed for the reiief that he was entitled to have his probation declared from 15-6-1960 and also entitled to increments and other sums due on that account from 15-6-1960.
(3.) The bank resisted this application on more than one ground. In the first place, it raised a preliminary objection to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain such a petition under Sec. 33C (2). At the bank's insistance, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was considerad as a preliminary issue. The Labour Court held that the petition filed by the employee was within the scope of sub-section (2) of Sec. 33C and, therefore, it had jurisdiction to consider and dispose of the petition.;