- (1.) The respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) was employed as Trainee Technician on the Establishment of the Appellant by an order sent to him on February 29, 1989 which contained Inter alia the following stipulations: "You will be on training for a period of one year from the date of joining. You are requested to join on or before 1-3-1989. During this period the Management may at its discretion withdraw the above facility of providing training to you at any time without assigning any reason whatsoever. You will be considered for regular employment on satisfactory completion of your training."
(2.) The respondent was working as a Trainee Service Technician at Gwalior. He was transferred to work at Pune. On 28-1-1990, a letter was sent to him to the effect that he had absented himself from work from August 10, 1989 when he left Pune and had not returned to work at all. Therefore, in terms of appointment order withdrew the facility of training w.e.f. January 31, 1990. The respondent raised an industrial dispute. The Labour Court which adjudicated the matter in favour of the respondent holding that he had worked for 240 days and termination of his services being contrary to provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short 'the Act'), is bad and directed his reinstatement with back wages. That award was challenged before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that the respondent though a probationer was entitled to the protection of Section 25-F of the Act. Hence this appeal.
(3.) Shri V. A. Mohta, learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellant relied on the provisions of S. 2(oo) proviso (bb) of the Act to contend that the services of a workman could be put to an end to in terms of the employment; that in giving effect to those terms if the same had ended in termination of his services it would not amount to retrenchment and therefore, would not attract Section 25-F of the Act. He derived support to his contention from the principles set out in the decisions of this Court in Escorts Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, 1997 (11) SCC 521 and M. Venogopal v. Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Machilipetnam A. P., 1994 (2) SCC 323.;