( 1 ) UNDER Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-Institute has challenged the award of the Special Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCIDAT) No. 248 of 1997 whereby the respondent-workman is ordered to be reinstated with full backwages with costs quantified at Rs. 750. 00. After the said impugned award was published on 6. 8. 1999 and the petition was filed and admitted with the grant of ad-interim relief on 13. 3. 2000, the order of ad-interim stay against operation of the award was modified by the Court (Coram: H. K. Rathod, J.) by ordering the petitioner to pay full current wages with arrears with effect from 9. 6. 1999 upon receipt of an affidavit from the respondent stating that he was unemployed. The respondent was ordered to file such affidavit in compliance with the provisions of Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( the `i. D. Act for short ). Thereafter, in an application seeking clarification of the order, the above order was modified to the extent that the respondent was required to file an undertaking to the effect that if the petitioner succeeds in the petition, the workman will repay the amount of difference between the last drawn wages and the regular current salary which was ordered to be paid. Then, upon the respondent filing a Civil Application for other and further benefits, such as, bonus, travelling allowances, leave travel concessions for himself and his wife etc. , the petition was posted for final hearing.

( 2 ) THE original dispute referred to the Labour Court arose from the demand of the respondent-workman to be reinstated with full backwages as he was discharged from service with effect from 16. 4. 1994. According to the case of the respondent, he was initially appointed as a junior stenographer on probation for a period of six months from 2. 3. 1993. His work was appreciated by some of the doctors by written letters. At the end of the probationary period of six months, instead of being confirmed in service, the period of probation was extended by a further period of six months by the petitioner. There were no complaints against the petitioner even during the extended period of probation, but apprehending termination of his service, the respondent had approached the Civil Court by way of a civil suit and obtained an injunction under which he continued in service till 16. 4. 1994. Upon vacation of the injunction granted by the Civil Court, the respondent had also approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 5348 of 1994, which was subsequently withdrawn. Thus, the grievance of the respondent was that his service was terminated without any reasonable cause and in violation of the provisions of Sections 25f, 25g and 25h of the I. D. Act. 2. 1 the petitioner-employer relied upon the express conditions in the appointment order of the respondent, according to which, if the work and conduct of the workman were found to be satisfactory during the probation period, he was to be confirmed by giving specific order in writing and if they were not found satisfactory, his service was liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons and without any notice. It was further stipulated that the workman may be given an opportunity to improve his work and conduct by extending the period of probation for one year. Relying on these express conditions of service, by office order dated 27. 8. 1993, the period of probation was extended by six months upto 1. 3. 1994. As at the time of expiry of that period the respondent was protected by an injunction of the Civil Court, he was continued in employment till that stay operated and that fact was intimated to the respondent by office order dated 1. 3. 1994. Thereafter, as seen earlier, upon vacation of the injunction, the petitioner had relieved the respondent on 16. 4. 1994 and, without prejudice to the contention that the respondent was working under the extended probationary period and not entitled to