Judgment

N. P. SINGH, J. :- This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the writ application filed on behalf of the appellant for quashing the order of termination of his services, during the period of probation.

2. The appellant was appointed as Development Officer by the respondent. Life Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), on probation for a period of one year from 23-5-1984 to 22-5-1985. The period of probation of the appellant was extended for a further period of one year from 23-5-1985 to 22-5-1986. Clauses 3 to 6 of the order of appointment deal with the code of conduct to be followed : clauses 6 to 9 deal with tours, advance deposits, record of work and collection of premiums; clause 10 deals with the minimum business that the appellant was expected to do during the period specified, clause 11 deals with confirmation and is as follows :-

"11. Confirmation and Increments

(i) On your satisfactorily completing the period of probation and your observance and compliance with all conditions set out in this letter of appointment, you will be confirmed in the services of the Corporation in Class-II. Your confirmation will depend inter alia upon the fulfilment of the minimum business guarantee set out in para 10 above and upon your record of posts and service to the Corporations policy-holders and other functions performed by you in the area allotted to you to the satisfaction of the competent authority."

3. As the appellant was required to do a minimum business mentioned in the order and as he failed to achieve the target so fixed, the Divisional Manager of the Corporation, by a communication dated 1-2-1986, advised the appellant to comply with the said term during the extended period of probation. Yet another communication was issued to the appellant on 5-4-1986, saying that he had failed to fulfil the norm prescribed to earn confirmation. He was asked to improve his performance, failing which his service was likely to be terminated. Before the expiry of the extended period of probation the service of the appellant was terminated on 9-6-1986.

4. A writ application was filed by the appellant before the High Court, questioning the legality of the aforesaid order of termination. A learned single Judge quashed the said order, holding that as the appellant shall be deemed to be "workman" within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination of his service will amount to "retrenchment" within the meaning of S. 2(oo) of the Act, which was null and void, in view of non-compliance of the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act.

5. On an appeal being filed on behalf of the Corporation a Division Bench of the High Court took the view that because of clause (bb) which has been introduced in S. 2(oo) of the Act with effect from 18-8-1984, by the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1984 (Act 49 of 1984), the termination of the appellant by the Corporation within the period of probation, shall not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(oo).

6. Section 2(oo) of the Act says that "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. A new clause (bb) has been introduced, apart from the three exceptions mentioned in S. 2(oo), which shall not be deemed to be retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(00) of the Act. Clause (bb), which has been introduced by the aforesaid Amending Act, says :-

"(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein : or" (Emphasis supplied)

7. Clause 11 of the order of appointment specifically said that on appellants satisfactorily completing the period of probation and on his observance and compliance with all