J.M.SHELAT, J.

(1) THE appellant-company is carrying on business in general insurance and has its registered office in Calcutta. It has a branch office in Delhi. On 18/07/1966, its Delhi Branch appointed the respondent as a stenographer on a salary of Rs. 307.00 a month. No letter of appointment was then issued to the respondent, but on being asked to sign a proforma Ex. M-l, which contained certain terms and conditions of service, he filled it and signed the same on 21/07/1966. Presumably thinking that this was sufficient, the company did not issue a formal letter of appointment. On 2/04/1967, the respondent wrote to the company demanding a letter of appointment. In its reply, dated 17/04/1967, Ex. M-5, the company informed the respondent that his appointment was as a probationer for one year with effect from 18/07/1966. In the meantime, the respondent had approached the Labour Commissioner with a request that the management should be directed to issue, as required by the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954 and the Rules thereunder, the said letter of appointment. On being so required, the company issued on 26/06/1967, a letter of appoint- ment, Ex. W-4. On 17/07/1967 the company terminated the respondents services staling that his services were no longer required.

(2) THE companys case was that its staff rules required that all appoint- ments in the company were, in the first instance, to be on probation for one year, that accordingly the respondents appointment was as a probationer for one year, and that period having expired, it was competent to and did in fact terminate his services as they were no longer required. In the alterna- tive, its case was that even if the respondents appointment was not proved to be one as a probationer, the said staff rules as also the terms and condi- tions contained in the said proforma, signed by the respondent, empowered the company to terminate the services of its employees on giving one months notice or a months salary in lieu thereof, and that therefore, the company was entitled to terminate his services and such termination could not be challenged. The respondents case, on the other hand, was that at the very first interview, he had with the companys regional manager in response to the companys advertisement for the post of a stenographer, he had made it clear that he was not interested in any appointment for a year, that if he was to be considered for the post his appointment should be a permanent one, that on that it was agreed between him and the regional manager of the company that he would be appointed as a permanent employee, that though the staff rules of the company may have provided that all appointments must, in the first instance, be on probation, there was nothing to prevent the com- pany from making permanent appointment, and that in any event, he was never shown those staff rules, nor informed that he was being appointed as a probationer subject to those staff rules. According to him, the companys claim that he was appointed as a probationer was not true and the companys stand to that effect was only an after thought to justify termination of his services. As against the campanys case that this was, in any event, a case of termination of service simpliciter, his case was that the order terminating his services was in truth a punitive order dismissing him and was not in bona fide exercise of the companys power of termination and was therefore not a valid order.

(3) A dispute having thus arisen, the respondent moved the central Government who referred the question to the tribunal under Section 10(1), read with Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The tribunal, on evidence adduced by the parties, held : (a) that the company had failed to prove that the respondent was appointed as a probationer for one year, (b) that the order terminating his services was not one of termination simpliciter, but was an order punishing the re