R.L.KHURANA, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is a Diploma Holder in Mechanical Engineering, was appointed as an Assistant Engineer by respondent No. 2 Company vide appointment letter dated January 30, 1991 (Annexure P-2). Such appointment was on probation for a period of six months, which period of probation was extendable. The term regarding probation as contained in paras 8 and 9 of the appointment letter, Annexure P-2 is to the following effect: "You will be on probation for a period of six months, which can be extended if necessary. If no orders are passed on the completion of the initial period of six months the probation period shall be deemed to have been automatically extended by three months, i. e., up to nine months, if no orders are passed on the completion of the first nine months, the probation period shall be deemed to have been automatically extended by another three months, i. e., upto one year. However, within the expiry of these three months orders regarding extension of probation or your confirmation would be issued by us. During the probation period either party will be at liberty to terminate the appointment by giving thirty days notice or compensation in lieu thereof and without assigning any reason whatsoever."
(2.) Since the work and performance of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, his services were terminated with effect from September 14, 1991 by order dated September 12, 1991 (Annexure P- 3).
(3.) On an industrial dispute having been raised by the petitioner, the following reference was made by the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Labour Court for adjudication: "Whether termination of Vinod Kumar Walia, Assistant Engineer on September 14, 1991 during the continuation of his probationary period by the Managing Director acting on behalf of the respondent on account of his unsuitability is legal and valid? If not, to what relief is he entitled to?";