( 1 ) THE petitioner-Gram Panchayat is aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Labour Court granting reinstatement with backwages to the respondent-workman.

( 2 ) THE Labour Court has held that the action of termination of the services of the respondent was retrenchment and condition precedent laid down in Sec. 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not been followed and, therefore, the termination was illegal and void.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner-Panchayat submitted that the workman was on probation and, therefore, termination of service within the probation period would not amount to retrenchment as defined in Sec. 2 (oo) of the I. D. Act. Secondly it was submitted that the petitioner had not completed one year of continuous service and, therefore, no retrenchment compensation was payable and, therefore, the condition precedent was not applicable in the present case. Thirdly, it was submitted that the post, which the petitioner was occupying, has been abolished as a measure of economy and, therefore, reinstatement could not have been ordered And fourthly it was submitted that having regard to the poor financial condition of the petitioner-