JUDGMENT

S. C. AGRAWAL, J.—( This appeal, by special leave, arises out of proceedings initiated by the appellant under Section 41 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The appellant was appointed in the clerical grade of the respondent-bank by order dated March 21, 1970. The said appointment was on probation for a period of six months which could be extended by the respondent-bank at its discretion. In the letter of appointment it was stated that during the probation period, the appellants services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason whatsoever by one months notice or on payment of a months pay and allowances in lieu of notice. In pursuance of the said letter of appointment the appellant joined duty on April 16, 1970. The period of probation which was to expire on October 6, 1970 was extended for a further period of three months. Before the expiry of the extended probation period the services of the appellant were terminated by order dated January 2, 1971 which reads as under: "

"This is to inform Mr. Syed Azam Hussaini, Probationer in Clerical grade at Khairatabad (Hyderabad branch) that his services are hereby terminated with effect from the close of business hours to-day.

He will be paid one months salary and allowances in lieu of notice."

3. In pursuance of the said order an amount equivalent to one months salary and allowances of the appellant was credited to his Savings Account with the respondent bank on January 5, 1971.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said termination of his services the appellant filed an appeal under Section 41 of the Act before the Authority, hereinafter referred to as the Authority. Before the Authority the case of the appellant was that no defect in his work was pointed out to him nor did he receive any memo and that his services were terminated with a view to victimise him because he had joined the Union on December 2, 1970. The respondent bank contested the said appeal and pleaded that the Act had no application and that the conditions of the service of bank employees are governed by the Sastry Award and the Desai Award and further that it was not necessary to notify the defects of the employee during probation and that the very extension of the probation was indicative of the fact that the employees work during the probation was not satisfactory. The respondent-bank did not, however, adduce any evidence to justify that the said termination was for a reasonable cause. The Authority , by order dated November 29, 1971, held that the order of termination was illegal as it was against the provisions of the Act and directed reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages and all antecedent benefits. The Authority found that the appellant was governed by the provisions of the Act and that the right of the respondent-bank to terminate the services of the appellant was subject to Section 40 of the Act and that in the present case respondent-bank has not shown any reasonable cause for termination of the services of the appellant and that one months salary in lieu of notice was not paid with the order of termination.

5. The respondent-bank filed an appeal against the said order of the Authority which was dismissed by the Labour Court at Hyderabad, by judgment dated October 30, 1972. The Labour Court also held that no reasons had been assigned by the respondent-bank in the order terminating the services of the appellant and the omission on the part of the appellant to exercise the option in favour of the statutory benefits would not deprive him of the statutory protection given under the Act. Relying on the decisions of this Court in the Management of the Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd., Madurai v. The Presiding Officer. Labour Court, Madurai, AIR 1964 SC 806, the Labour Court held that the services of the appellant could not be terminated before the expiry of the period of probation. The Labour Court further held that un