Judgment

JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.:- The respondent was appointed by the appellant as a salesman on probation in terms of an appointment letter of September 15, 1965, end on the same day joined the service. Clause (l) of the letter of appointment read as follows :

"You will serve a probationary period of six months this period of probation may be extended by a further period of three months or more in suitable cases in the absolute discretion of the company. The Company has the right to terminate your services during the period of probation or the extended period of probation or before confirmation in writing without notice and without assigning any reasons whatsoever.

After the agreement which captained the above Clause was signed, the respondent was immediately directed by the appellant by another letter of the same date, namely September 15, 1965, to proceed to Bhilwara for the initial training of a salesman and report to Mr. Agarwal. He was further directed to keep a diary and note the important points of the day s working and was required to furnish to the appellant a training report every week-end. In compliance with these directions he went and joined at Bhilwara, and on November 24, 1965, he was asked to go and take charge at Swai Madhopur where he fell ill. On December 8, 1965 he asked for leave for one month December 1, 1965 and again on January 1, 1966, he applied for further leave for one month enclosing a medical certificate. On January 4, 1966, the appellant asked the respondent his present state of health and the probable date he intended to resume duty.

2. The Company by its letter of January 10, 1966, terminated the services of the respondent. The letter said :

"We regret to terminate your services with immediate effect in terms of clause (l) of your appoint letter dated 15-9-1965."

After the termination, conciliation proceedings seem to have teem initiated, but they were abortive, Thereafter the dispute was referred to the Tribunal by the Government of Rajasthan by its notification dated October 11, 1966, to adjudicate the following question :

"Whether the termination of the services of Shri Y. K. Gautam by M/s. Brook Bond India Private Ltd., Ajmer is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief Shri Gautam is entitled ?"

3. The Tribunal relied on two cases of this Court namely, Utkal Machinery Ltd. v. Miss Santi Patnaik, (l966) 1 Lab LJ 398 and Express Newspapers Ltd. v. Labour Court, Madras, (1964) 1 Lab LJ 9, for the proposition that the appellant was not justified in discharging the respondent from service without holding a proper Inquiry and that there was no evidence adduced on behalf of the management to show that the work of the probationer was unsatisfactory. It referred to the adverse reports of N. K Patwardhan, P. I. Sonwaney and A. N. Bose, the Area Manager, which were not communicated to the respondent, but instead he was given an independent charge on November 24, 1965, at Swai Madhopur after these reports were made. The Tribunal after observing that if the work of the respondent was not satisfactory he would have been charge-sheeted and dealt with according to rules of natural justice, came to the conclusion that the respondent s services were terminated before the expiry of the period of probation, without giving him any opportunity to show cause for his discharge, and that since the services of the respondent were terminated during his probationary period when he was ill without any inquiry, it was unjustified and illegal and accordingly the order of termination dated January 10, 1966, was set aside. The appellant was directed to reinstate the respondent to his farmer job within one month from the date of publication of the award with continuity of service and pay him full back wages from the date of discharge till the date of reinstatement. It further directed that after reinstatement. It shall be within the Company s right to confirm him or not for valid and genuine reasons by bona fide exercise of its