JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Perused the record.

2. The petitioner - Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (India) through Chief Executive has filed this petition challenging the award of the labour Court dated 30.6.2008 in Reference (L.C.B. No.41 of 1998, by which, the Labour Court directed that the respondent be reinstated in service with continuity and with 15% back wages. The case of the respondent - workman before the labour Court was, as stated in the Statement of Claim at Exh.7 that he was working as a Community Organizer cum Trainee. That he was appointed in December, 1994 on probation for a period of one year. That his services were terminated with effect from 30.12.1995 and, therefore, that termination amounted to retrenchment carried out in violation of the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner apart from taking the objection as to the respondent being a workman and that the institution was a Trust and not "Industry" within the meaning of the definition of "Industry" under Section 2(j) of the Act also contended that the termination was not retrenchment and in fact it was putting an end to service during the course of probation. The labour Court, by the award under challenge not agreeing with the submission of the learned advocate for the employer opined that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25(F) of the ID Act and, therefore, ordered reinstatement.

3. Mr. Yogen N. Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that reading the order of appointment and the subsequent extensions made from time to time would indicate that the appointment was purely on a probation. Before the expiry of the period of probation, a month before, on 30.11.1995, the Trust issued notice to the petitioner specifically stating that this communication be treated as a notice for one month for relieving the respondent with effect from 30.12.1995. That, according to Mr. Pandya, termination of service because of non-extension of probation would not be retrenchment. He would rely on a decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Cancer and Research Institute v. Sanjay Chandrakant Vyas reported in 2001(3) GLH 732. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Saurashtra University v. Shambhubhai Hirjibhai Padalia reported in 2006(1) GLH 443.

4. Mr. Harshad K. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent workman would submit that if the condition of the appointment order is read, it is specifically stated that the respondent may be continued in service for a period of over two years. That being so termination prior thereto, was in violation of the conditions of the appointment order. Though the period of probation was extended from time to time, such extensions and the subsequent termination was nothing, but unfair labour practice and therefore, no fault can be found with the award of the labour Court awarding reinstatement.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is evident that the respondent was appointed as Community Organizer with the petitioner vide order dated 12.12.1994. The terms of the appointment clearly indicated that the respondent was appointed on probation for a period of one year which can be shortened. The appointment order clearly stated that the initial probation was upto 30.9.1995. On record of the petition are subsequent orders extending the period of probation by an order of 25.9.1995 upto 31.12.1995. These orders specifically stated that the extension of probation is subject to satisfactory work. By an order of 30.11.1995 finally having found the performance of the respondent employee not being satisfactory in accordance with the terms of appointment, one month's notice was given. Dues were paid and the services of the respondent were put to an end on the expiry of the probation period.

6. Though Mr. Patel has supported the award of the Labour Court by filing an affidavit