The legal status of an employee, whether confirmed, trainee, or probationer, determines the applicability of termination procedures under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the award of the first respondent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, dated 31. 2002, made in I.D.No.54 of 2001, and to consequently reinstate the petitioner in the service of the second respondent Bank, with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits.

3. It has been stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Senior Assistant in the second respondent Bank, in the year 1990. After serving in the Bank for nearly a year, he was terminated from service by invoking Clause-6 of the terms of the Appointment Order. The order terminating the petitioner from service by the second respondent Bank is arbitrary and a colourable exercise of power. It is also malafide in nature. The management of the second respondent Bank had not issued any notice to the petitioner before invoking Clause-6 of the Appointment Order. No reason has been given for terminating the service of the petitioner. In spite of the petitioner carrying on the duties assigned to him, satisfactorily, the order of termination has been issued by the management of the second respondent Bank. If the second respondent Bank wanted to terminate the service of the petitioner for unsatisfactory performance of work, it should have been done only in the manner known to law, by conducting an enquiry and by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case. However, the second respondent Bank had issued the termination order, without following the procedures prescribed by law and without following the principles of natural justice.

4. Aggrieved by the order of termination, the petitioner had approached the Conciliation Officer for a settlement of the dispute. Since the conciliation had failed, a Failure Report, dated 18. 96, had been sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour. The Government of India, by an order, dated 3. 2000, had referred the matter to the first respondent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court for adjudication. The first respondent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, by an order, dated 31. 2002, had dismissed the reference, without any justification. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award of the first respondent Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, dated 31. 2002, made in I.D.No.54 of 2001.

5. An additional counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent denying the claims made by the petitioner. It has been stated that the petitioner was originally offered the post of Trainee Senior Assistant, by a letter, dated 291. The petitioner had accepted the offer and had given his concurrence by a letter, dated 11. 92. Based on the acceptance of the petitioner, the second respondent Bank had sent an appointment letter, dated 292. As per the terms of the appointment letter, vide Clause No.3, the petitioner would be on training for a period of six months. The second respondent Bank may extend or curtail the period of training at its discretion depending upon his performance. In the appointment letter, it was also stated that the second respondent Bank may, at its discretion, without giving any notice, can dispense with the service of the petitioner, during the training period, if his performance is found to be unsatisfactory. It was also specified in the appointment letter that during the training period the petitioner would be paid a consolidated monthly salary of Rs.1200/-. The petitioner had accepted the offer and had signed the duplicate copy of the appointment letter by stating that he had accepted the terms and conditions of the appointment. Thereafter, he had reported for duty on 292. He had also executed the service bond, as required under the rules of the