MARKANDEYA KATJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24. 2. 2003 by which the writ petition has been dismissed. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

( 2 ) THE facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single judge. Hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

( 3 ) THE respondents 2 and 3 in this appeal were employed by the appellant. As held by the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa and Ors. , AIR 1978 SC 538, they have to be held as workmen under the industrial Disputes Act. Against the termination of their services they raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Industrial Tribunal which held that there was violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents were on probation and hence their services could be terminated without inquiry. In our opinion, the basic flaw in this argument is that it relies on a principle of service law, whereas we are concerned with industrial law. The principle of one branch of law cannot b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document