JUDGMENT :

P. Sathasivam, J.—Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Madurai, in I. D. No. 94 of 1988, dated February 17, 1992, Pandian Roadways Corporation has filed the above writ petition.

2. According to the petitioner-Corporation, it is an undertaking of the Government of Tamil Nadu engaged in public transport. It has its own standing orders governing the service conditions of its employees. The petitioner has a right to recruit a probationer and put him on probation. The second respondent herein was engaged as a conductor Grade II by an order dated February 5, 1973. Even in the appointment order it is specifically stated that the second respondent will be under probation for a period of twelve months, which may be extended at the discretion of the management for such further period. As the performance of the second respondent was found to be unsatisfactory, his period of probation was further extended for a period of six months in three spells of two months each. Since the service of the second respondent was not found to be satisfactory even during the extended period of probation, at the end of the final period of probation, his service was terminated without casting any