M.L. Bhat, J. - (1.) By this judgment the two writ petitions-writ petition No. 20666 of 1990 and 19683 of 1991 -- are being decided. In writ petition No. 19683 of 1991 the Petitioner has challenged the recovery proceedings in pursuance of the order passed by the Respondent No. 1 dated 2-7-1991. The validity or otherwise of those recovery proceedings are dependent on the award passed by the Labour Court in favour of the workman, who is one of the Respondents in both the writ petitions. Therefore, the judgment in writ petition No 20666 of 1990 will govern the other petition also.
(2.) By its award dated 5-2-1990 the Labour Court has held that the retrenchment of the workman was in violation of the provisions of the U.P. industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, therefore, it has quashed the retrenchment of the workman and ordered his reinstatement with back wages. The Petitioner has challenged the said award through the medium of this writ petition,
(3.) It appears that the workman was appointed by the order dated 2-5-1983 as Fitter Grade III on a fixed salary of Rs. 280/- plus dearness allowance per month. His appointment was probationary for a period of six months with effect from the date he joined or for such extended period as was feed by the management at their option. During the period of probation his services could be dispensed with without notice. After his probation if he was confirmed, his appointment was to continue for an indefinite period. The appointment order had provided the workman's duties and obligations arid arrangement for his residential accommodation, leave, travelling expenses and Provident Fund etc.;