K C SOOD,J. - (1.)ON a Reference made by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the Presiding Judge, H.P. Labour Court, Shimla, by its award dated 4th May, 2002 held that termination of the services of the respondent Puni Chand was illegal unjustified. The Presiding Judge directed his reinstatement from the date of his termination with continuity in seniority and back wages to the extent of 20% from the date of his termination. Dis-satisfied, the petitioners, H.R.T.C. and Others, are in this petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Few facts:
(2.)THE respondent, hereinafter referred to as the "workman", in his claim petition alleged that he was appointed as Conductor in Baijnath Depot by the employer H.R.T.C. and thereafter was transferred to Pathankot Depot and continued to work at that place till November, 1989 and his services were terminated in the year 1989. Fresh appointment was given to him as Conductor in Rohru Depot in the year 1990, but was again transferred from Rohru to Hamirpur Depot in 1991 and thereafter to Baijnath. His services were terminated on Ist December, 1992 on account of embezzlement and having not issued tickets to the passengers.
The case of the workman was that several other Conductors who were engaged after him were retained in the service while he was dis-engaged from the service. According to the employer-Corporation, the workman was engaged and was put on probation for one year. His work and conduct was not found satisfactory, therefore, period of probation was extended for another period of one year. Even during this extended period of probation he was found to be involved in 14 cases of ticket-less travelling. His work and conduct too was unsatisfactory. It was for this reason that he was discharged from his service during the probation period.

(3.)LEARNED Presiding Judge of the Labour Court took a view that no evidence was produced by the petitioner- Corporation that the workman was on probation and he was discharged from services. Apparently, the learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court in her wisdom had not gone through the pleadings of the parties and reached to this conclusion without any foundation and contrary to the pleadings before her.