Termination during probation in India, while legally permissible, is not automatic or risk-free. In the event of disputes, courts tend to closely examine notice requirements, intent behind termination, and whether the action is punitive, discriminatory, or mala fide.
Although the employers have a wider discretion during probation, it’s not unfettered. To avoid arbitrariness and judicial scrutiny termination must align with the terms of the appointment letter and underlying principles of labour law.
What is a probation period under Indian employment law?
Under the Indian employment law, probation is a contractual phase during which an employer assesses an employee’s suitability for a role before confirming their employment.
Practically, probation is created through a contractual documentation; its duration is determined by the terms agreed between the parties, and rights and obligations of both employer and employee during the probation period flow from such contractual documentation.
The absence of a statutory definition does not render probation unenforceable, instead the Indian courts have accepted probation as a legitimate contractual concept, provided it is recorded in the appointment letter or employment contract and implemented fairly.
In this context, probation functions as a testing or assessment period rather than a guarantee of continued employment. However, this does not mean that the powers of employers are unchecked. The structure of probation, its applicability, and enforcement can have real legal implications if termination during probation is challenged.
How do courts interpret probation clauses?
Courts approach probation clauses by looking at the substance of the arrangement over the label attached to it. Simply describing an employee as being on “probation” is not decisive; what matters is how the clause operates in practice.
Judicial scrutiny typically centres on whether:
- The probation clause clearly allows termination during probation
- Termination is simpliciter and not punitive in nature
- The employer has acted in good faith and without arbitrariness or mala fide intent
- The clause and its implementation are consistent with the basic principles of fairness and natural justice
Where a probationary termination is founded on allegations of misconduct, carries stigma, or amounts to a concealed punishment, courts have held that merely labelling the employee as a probationer will not shield the employer from legal challenges.
Is probationary termination different from confirmed employment?
Probationary termination is materially different from the termination of a confirmed employee, both in terms of process and the legal standards that apply.
Key distinctions recognised by courts include:
- A probationary employee does not enjoy a vested right to continue in employment
- Termination during the probation period is, as a general rule, easier for an employer to justify contractually
- Disciplinary procedures that would ordinarily apply to confirmed employees may not be required
- The standard of judicial review of probationary termination is typically more limited in scope.
That said, courts have clarified that this distinction cannot be used as a shield. It disappears if termination is founded on misconduct, stigma, or punitive intent, in which case protections akin to those available to confirmed employees may be attracted.
Is a reason required for termination during probation?
As a general rule, an employer is not required to assign detailed reasons for termination during probation so long as the termination is simpliciter and contractually permitted.
However, legal risk arises where:
- The termination order itself records allegations or adverse findings
- The action is, in substance, linked to misconduct without the backing of a domestic enquiry
- Termination is inconsistent with past evaluations or repeated extensions of probation
- The employer’s conduct suggests victimisation or a lack of good faith
In such cases, courts have held that the absence of basic procedural safeguards can render probationary termination legally vulnerable to challenge and, in some cases, legally unsustainable.
Notice requirements for termination during probation
In India, notice is not automatically required for termination during probation. Whether notice must be given depends on the terms of the appointment letter and the manner in which termination is effected. Even during probation, employers are expected to comply with contractual notice clauses unless the contract expressly permits immediate termination.
While probation does not allow employers greater flexibility, courts do not treat notice requirements as irrelevant. Failure to adhere to the agreed notice clauses remains one of the most common grounds on which probationary terminations are challenged.
Basically, probation does not override the contract; rather, it operates squarely within it.
Termination without notice during probation has been upheld by courts only where the employment contract clearly permits it, and such termination during the probation period is non-punitive.
Courts have upheld termination without notice in situations where:
- The appointment letter expressly permits termination “without notice” during probation
- Termination is based on the overall assessment of suitability or performance
- Termination does not record allegations of misconduct or carry any stigma
- The action is consistent with how probation has been administered in practice
Where termination during probation is abrupt but contractually authorised, courts are generally reluctant to interfere unless the evidence of mala fide intent, bad faith or arbitrariness is evident.
How the appointment letter determines notice obligations
The appointment letter is the primary document governing notice requirements during the probation period, and its wording often proves decisive in assessing the legality of a termination.
Judicial scrutiny usually focuses on whether:
- The notice clause clearly differentiates between probation and confirmation
- Notice or salary in lieu of notice is contemplated during probation
- The employer has applied the clause consistently across similarly placed employees
- The clause is fair, unambiguous, and not unfairly prejudicial
Where the appointment letter expressly requires notice or salary in lieu thereof, employers are bound to comply with those obligations even during probation.
Application of natural justice during probationary termination
Principles of natural justice do not apply to every probationary termination. However, they become relevant where the termination is punitive, carries a stigma, or is founded on allegations of misconduct. In assessing such cases, courts examine the substance of the employer’s action rather than the employee’s probationary status.
While probation does allow for a simpler exit mechanism, it does not give employers the license to bypass fairness where the circumstances attract legal safeguards.
Courts have consistently held that the following principles apply where:
- Termination is based on alleged misconduct or blameworthy conduct
- The termination order itself records adverse findings or carries a stigma
- The employer relies on complaints, investigations, or fault-based material
Where the action, in substance, operates as a form of punishment rather than discharge, courts have held that denying an employee an opportunity to be heard or failure to conduct a fair process can leave the termination open to legal challenge.
Even where no misconduct is alleged, a termination during probation must still withstand scrutiny for fairness. Courts have made it clear that probation cannot be used as a cover for arbitrary and discriminatory actions. Judicial intervention has been considered appropriate in situations where a termination is inconsistent with the employee’s prior performance feedback or repeated extensions of probation, where similarly placed probationers are treated differently without any reasonable explanation, or where the decisions appear to be influenced by retaliation, victimisation, or bias.
The consistent judicial position is that probation is meant to serve as a genuine period of assessment, not a licence for unfair treatment. Where probationary powers are misused, courts have not hesitated to set aside the termination.
Applicability of the Industrial Relations Code to probationary termination
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020, may apply to the termination of probationary employees if statutory conditions are satisfied. Being on probation does not automatically exempt an employee from the protections available under the Code.
Courts and labour authorities determine the applicability based on the employee’s actual role and the legal nature of the termination, rather than relying solely on contractual labels.
When a probationary employee qualifies as a “worker”
As per the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, a probationary employee may qualify as a “worker” if the nature of work performed falls within the statutory definition under section 2 (zr) of the code. The assessment is fact-based and does not turn on the employee’s probationary status alone. Courts and authorities typically consider the following factors:
- Nature of duties:
Where the employee is primarily engaged in manual, technical, clerical, or operational work rather than managerial or administrative roles, they are more likely to fall within the statutory definition - Substance over designation:
The emphasis is on what the employee actually does on a day-to-day basis, rather than how the role is described in contractual documentation. - Absence of managerial authority:
The employee does not, in practice, exercise supervisory or managerial authority beyond what is permitted under the statutory threshold. - Probation status not decisive:
Being on probation does not change the statutory position. If the work performed otherwise satisfies the requirements of the Code, probationary status does not dilute or negate statutory classification as a worker.
When probationary termination amounts to retrenchment
Termination of a probationary employee may amount to retrenchment if it does not fall within the recognised statutory exceptions. While probationary status is relevant, it is not determinative. Courts and labour authorities continue to focus on the substance and effect of the termination rather than its contractual label.
Under Section 2 (zp) read with Section 70 of the Code, retrenchment attracts mandatory pre-conditions, including notice and payment of retrenchment compensation. Where a probationary termination results in loss of employment and not merely the natural end of a fixed-term engagement, it may fall within the scope of retrenchment. This risk increases where the employer is unable to demonstrate that the termination genuinely comes from a probationary assessment, or when provisions of section 70 have not been complied with.
When the practical effect of the termination is to remove the employee from service in the absence of a recognised statutory exception or compliance with Section 70, courts do not extend retrenchment-related protections to probationary employees, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement.
Performance-based termination during probation
Termination during probation on performance grounds is legally defensible in law, provided it is based on a genuine assessment of suitability and supported by contemporaneous records. Courts in India have recognised performance as a legitimate basis for probationary termination, provided the action is not arbitrary, punitive, or used as a pretext to deal with alleged misconduct.
As mentioned above, probation is intended to evaluate capability and overall performance. However, employers must be in a position where the decision to terminate was an outcome of an honest performance assessment and not influenced by undisclosed or extraneous considerations.
Documentation supporting poor performance
When performance is cited as the basis for probationary termination, courts place significant weight on contemporaneous documentation. This includes written performance evaluations, feedback records showing that concerns were communicated, and objective benchmarks such as role-specific targets or KPIs.
The court also examines whether the records are consistent over time and do not contradict earlier extensions, praise or positive assessments. Where the records tell a consistent story, courts are usually reluctant to interfere with the employer’s discretion during probation.
Effect of absence of performance reviews
The absence of a documented performance assessment can materially weaken the employer’s defence in probationary termination disputes.
- Inference of arbitrariness:
In the absence of contemporaneous records, courts may infer that termination was abrupt or unsupported by any real evaluation. - Contradictory conduct:
Extending probation or revising salary without recording adverse remarks may undermine subsequent claims of poor performance. - Shift towards punitive character:
Where performance issues are claimed but undocumented, courts may scrutinize whether the termination is disguised as misconduct. - Higher scrutiny of intent:
Employers may be called upon to justify any performance issues that were never documented during the probation period.
Courts have consistently held that although detailed performance appraisals are not mandatory during probation, there must be some simultaneous record or indication of a performance evaluation to justify termination based on performance.
Judicial scrutiny of probationary termination
Probationary termination can be contested before courts and labour authorities if it appears arbitrary, punitive, or contrary to contractual and statutory protections. In India, courts do not reassess the employer’s assessment of suitability during probation, but they do carefully examine the legality, intent, and fairness of the employer’s action.
Judicial review in probation matters is limited but not absent. Courts are willing to intervene when a termination deviates from established legal principles governing probationary employment.
Factors courts examine in probationary termination disputes
In assessing disputes, courts focus on the surrounding circumstances rather than the employer’s subjective satisfaction alone. Key considerations include:
- Nature of termination:
Whether the termination is genuinely based on unsuitability or in substance, is punitive despite neutral wording. - Contractual compliance:
Whether the appointment letter, probation clause, and notice requirements have been properly followed. - Presence of stigma or misconduct:
Whether the termination order or related records include allegations, adverse remarks, or blameworthy conduct. - Consistency of employer conduct:
Whether prior performance feedback, extensions, or evaluations align with the stated reason for termination. - Evidence of arbitrariness or mala fides:
Whether the decision appears discriminatory, retaliatory, or influenced by extraneous considerations.
Circumstances where courts have ordered reinstatement
While reinstatement of probationary employees is not common, courts have granted relief where termination is found to be legally unsustainable.
- Punitive termination without enquiry:
Where termination is based on alleged misconduct, but due process or natural justice are not followed. - Violation of statutory protections:
Where provisions of labour laws, including the Industrial Relations Code, have been ignored. - Stigmatic termination orders:
Where termination includes adverse findings that may impact future employment opportunities. - Colourable exercise of power:
Where probation is used as a pretext to disguise unlawful or unfair termination.
In such cases, courts have awarded remedies such as reinstatement, back wages, or compensation depending on the facts and principles of equity.
How important is the appointment letter during probation?
The appointment letter serves as the key legal document defining the rights and obligations during probation. In termination during probation in India, when a probationary termination is challenged, courts rely heavily on the appointment letter to determine whether the employer’s action was consistent with the contract and legally defensible.
In situations where the statutory provisions are silent on probation, the appointment letter takes on decisive importance. Any deviation from its terms can expose the employer to judicial scrutiny.
Which clauses support probationary termination?
Courts often focus on specific clauses in the appointment letter to assess whether probationary termination is contractually authorised.
- Probation clause:
It clearly specifies the probation period and expressly allows probationary termination. - Termination clause:
It provides for termination during probation with or without notice, as applicable. - Notice or pay-in-lieu provision:
It outlines whether notice or payment in lieu of notice is required during probation. - Assessment and confirmation terms:
It states that confirmation is subject to satisfactory performance and employer discretion.
Where these clauses are clear, unambiguous, and applied consistently, courts generally uphold probationary termination.
Can unfair clauses be struck down?
Yes, appointment letters are not automatically beyond judicial review. Courts have struck down or scrutinised clauses where they have intervened, where:
- Clauses are vague or arbitrary:
Terms that confer unfettered or absolute discretion without safeguards. - Clauses operate oppressively:
Provisions that are unfair, one-sided or disproportionately favour the employer. - Clauses conflict with statutory law:
Terms that attempt to override mandatory protections under labour law provisions. - Clauses are applied selectively:
Terms that are inconsistent and treat similarly placed probationary employees differently without justification.
In such circumstances, courts have consistently held that contractual terms cannot be used to legitimise unfair or unlawful termination, even during probation.
Is a domestic enquiry required during probation?
A domestic enquiry is not required for every probationary termination. However, it becomes essential when the termination is punitive in nature or arises from allegations of misconduct. In India, courts look beyond labels; they also look at the substance of the action to determine whether it is a simple discharge or a disguised from a punishment.
Probation permits assessment-based exits, not to serve as a means for penalising employees without following due process. The requirement of an enquiry depends on the underlying reason for termination.
When is an enquiry mandatory?
A domestic enquiry becomes legally important when termination during probation is tied to blameworthy conduct rather than overall suitability. This typically arises in the following situations:
- Allegations of misconduct:
Termination is based on claims such as indiscipline, dishonesty, insubordination, or other forms of misconduct. - Reliance on complaints or investigations:
The employer depends on internal complaints, reports, or investigative findings adverse to the employee. - Adverse findings on record:
Notes, emails, or termination orders contain conclusions reflecting the employee’s conduct or integrity. - Punitive intent:
The termination is intended to punish rather than to evaluate overall suitability.
In such circumstances, failure to conduct a fair enquiry and provide the employee with an opportunity of hearing can render the termination invalid.
How do courts identify punitive termination?
Courts determine whether a probationary termination is punitive by examining its substance rather than its form.
- Language of the termination order:
Wording that indicates blame, misconduct, or fault indicates a punitive character. - Background material relied upon:
Internal records or reports forming the basis of termination are closely scrutinised. - Absence of suitability assessment:
A lack of performance-based reasoning suggests that the termination was meant as punishment rather than evaluation. - Procedural shortcuts:
Sudden termination following an incident, without conducting an enquiry, may suggest misuse of probationary powers.
Where courts find that termination is punitive in effect, they have consistently held that probationary powers do not relieve the requirement of conducting a domestic enquiry.
Compliance risks in probationary termination
Probationary termination carries compliance risks, particularly if employers act inconsistently, selectively, or without clear documentation. In India, courts and labour authorities focus less on the employer’s subjective assessment and more on process integrity.
While probation allows a degree of flexibility, it does not excuse deviations from contractual obligations, equitable treatment, or statutory safeguards. Most legal exposure stems from procedural lapses that could have been avoided.
Risk arising from inconsistent probation practices
Inconsistent handling of probation across employees significantly increases the likelihood of legal scrutiny:
- Uneven application of probation terms:
Applying different notice periods, evaluation standards, or termination thresholds to similarly placed probationers can lead to allegations of arbitrariness. - Contradictory probation extensions:
Extending probation without documenting performance concerns and then later citing unsuitability undermines the credibility of termination. - Absence of uniform evaluation criteria:
Lack of standard benchmarks for assessing probationary performance leads to subjective and defensible decision-making. - Departure from past practice:
Absence of uniform benchmarks on how probation is administered, without explanation, raises suspicions of mala fide intent. - Selective enforcement of contractual clauses:
Using strict termination provisions for some employees while being lenient with others exposes employers to challenges on grounds of unequal treatment.
Risk of discrimination claims during probation
Probationary status does not eliminate protections against discrimination under Indian law.
- Termination linked to protected characteristics:
Decisions influenced by gender, pregnancy, disability, religion, or caste can trigger statutory and constitutional scrutiny. - Retaliatory termination:
Termination of an employee following complaints of harassment, whistleblowing, or assertion of legal rights may be treated as victimisation. - Disparate impact on specific groups:
Neutral probation policies that disproportionately affect certain categories of employees may trigger claims of indirect discrimination. - Lack of objective justification:
Failure to document non-discriminatory reasons for termination shifts the burden onto the employer. - Inadequate internal redressal mechanisms:
Lack of effective grievance procedures can amplify liability and weaken the employer’s defence.
Courts have consistently held that probation is not a shield against compliance obligations. Misuse or arbitrary exercise of probationary powers can result in significant legal consequences.
What are best practices for terminating probationers?
Best practices for probationary termination require focus on consistency, proper documentation, and adherence to contractual terms. In India, courts expect that the decisions are based on structured assessment rather than impulse or convenience.
Probationary termination is most defensible when it follows a disciplined process aligned with the appointment letter and supported by contemporaneous records.
How should probation reviews be documented?
Accurate and timely documentation of probationary assessment plays a critical role in supporting termination decisions.
- Written performance assessments:
Maintain brief but regular records that evaluate role fit, skills, and overall suitability. - Recorded feedback communication:
Document meetings, emails, or notes where expectations or performance are communicated to the employee. - Objective assessment parameters:
Use concrete and role-specific benchmarks, deliverables, or competency indicators rather than vague or subjective observations. - Chronological consistency:
Ensure that records reflect a progression of assessment rather than post-facto justification. - Alignment with probation outcomes:
Documentation should logically support the decision to confirm, extend, or terminate the probation.
How can employers minimise litigation risk?
Employers can reduce litigation risk during probationary termination by ensuring compliance and fair application of policies.
- Strict adherence to the appointment letter:
Follow termination, notice, and probation clauses exactly as drafted. - Avoidance of punitive language:
Termination orders should refrain from recording misconduct, blame, or stigma. - Uniform treatment of probationers:
Apply probation standards consistently across similarly placed employees. - Timely decision-making:
Avoid sudden termination immediately after following positive feedback or probation extensions. - Preservation of records:
Retain all probation reviews, feedback communications, and termination documentation for future reference.
Courts have repeatedly emphasised that a well-documented, non-punitive, and contractually compliant probationary termination is unlikely to invite judicial interference.
FAQs on termination during probation in India
Can probationary termination be challenged in labour court?
Yes. A probationary termination can be challenged before a labour court if the employee qualifies as a “worker” under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, and alleges that the termination is illegal, arbitrary, or in violation of statutory protections. Labour courts will examine whether the termination adhered to the appointment letter, complied with applicable labour laws, and whether it amounts to retrenchment or punitive discharge.
A probationary status does not bar judicial review, particularly where statutory rights are implicated or the termination departs from legally recognised safeguards.
Is written warning mandatory during probation?
No. Indian Law does not require a written warning during probation if the termination is a simple discharge based on overall unsuitability. However, if the termination is linked to allegations of misconduct or fault, the absence of prior warning or fair process may be relevant in determining whether the employer acted lawfully.
Does probation end automatically without confirmation?
No. Probation does not automatically conclude at the stipulated period unless the appointment letter expressly provides for deemed confirmation. In the absence of such a clause, probation continues until the employer expressly confirms employment.
Courts have consistently held that mere continuation of service alone or silence does not amount to automatic confirmation unless supported by contractual terms.
Can probation be extended instead of termination?
Yes. Probation may be extended if the appointment letter permits it, and the decision is communicated in a timely and transparent manner. Extension is a valid alternative where the employer requires additional time to evaluate suitability.
However, extension must not be used arbitrarily or indefinitely, and repeated extensions without justification may attract legal scrutiny.
Is gratuity or severance payable during probation?
Gratuity is not payable to employees who are terminated during probation unless the employee has completed the minimum qualifying period prescribed under the Code on Social Security, 2020. Probationary status does not alter the statutory eligibility requirement.
Likewise, severance or ex gratia payments during probation are not legal entitlements and become payable only if contractually agreed or voluntarily offered by the employer.
Conclusion
Termination during probation in India is legally recognised in India, but it is not immune from contractual discipline or judicial oversight. Although employers are afforded a broader discretion during probation, that discretion must be exercised strictly in accordance with the appointment letter, the framework of the labour codes, and standards of fairness.
Courts consistently assess whether probationary termination is genuine, non-punitive, and supported by a structured assessment of suitability. Lapses relating to notice requirements, documentation, inconsistent treatment, or the use of probation as a cover for misconduct often determine the outcome of disputes, mostly against the employer.
In practice, a legally sustainable probationary termination is one that is contractually grounded, supported by discipline procedures, and transparently fair. Where these safeguards are present, judicial interference is limited; where they are not, probationary status provides little protection to the employer.
About Us
Corrida Legal is a boutique corporate & employment law firm serving as a strategic partner to businesses by helping them navigate transactions, fundraising-investor readiness, operational contracts, workforce management, data privacy, and disputes. The firm provides specialized and end-to-end corporate & employment law solutions, thereby eliminating the need for multiple law firm engagements. We are actively working on transactional drafting & advisory, operational & employment-related contracts, POSH, HR & data privacy-related compliances and audits, India-entry strategy & incorporation, statutory and labour law-related licenses, and registrations, and we defend our clients before all Indian courts to ensure seamless operations.
We keep our client’s future-ready by ensuring compliance with the upcoming Indian Labour codes on Wages, Industrial Relations, Social Security, Occupational Safety, Health, and Working Conditions – and the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023. With offices across India including Gurgaon, Mumbai and Delhi coupled with global partnerships with international law firms in Dubai, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and the USA, we are the preferred law firm for India entry and international business setups. Reach out to us on LinkedIn or contact us at contact@corridalegal.com/+91-9211410147 in case you require any legal assistance. Visit our publications page for detailed articles on contemporary legal issues and updates.
Legal Consultation
In addition to our core corporate and employment law services, Corrida Legal also offers comprehensive legal consultation to individuals, startups, and established businesses. Our consultations are designed to provide practical, solution-oriented advice on complex legal issues, whether related to contracts, compliance, workforce matters, or disputes.
Through our Legal Consultation Services, clients can book dedicated sessions with our lawyers to address their specific concerns. We provide flexible consultation options, including virtual meetings, to ensure ease of access for businesses across India and abroad. This helps our clients make informed decisions, mitigate risks, and remain compliant with ever-evolving regulatory requirements.