The judgment establishes the principle that a termination order of a probationer's services may not be considered punitive if it is in accordance with the terms of appointment and does not involve allegations of moral turpitude or misconduct.

Harbans Lal, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of C.W.P. No. 7914 of 1987 preferred by Sardul Singh (hereinafter to be referred as the workman) as well as .C.W.P. No. 9414 of 1987 filed by the Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited, Chandigarh (for brevity, the Markfed) under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned award dated 27.5.1987 (Annexure P.8) whereby the workman is held entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back-wages. The reason for Sardul Singh posing a challenge to this award is that he has not been awarded his full back-wages, whereas the Markfed is aggrieved with this award for allowing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service. The facts are being garnered from C.W.P. No. 9414 of 1987.

2. The brief facts giving rise to these petitions are that Sardul Singh- workman was appointed as a Field Assistant by the Markfed vide letter dated 9.9.1980. As per the terms and conditions laid in his appointment letter, he was put on probation for a period of one year. He joined the service of the Markfed on 22.9.1980 at Faridkot. He served the Markfed from 22.9,1980 to 25.9.1980, whereafter he absented from duty. After repeated warnings, he joined his duties on 22.10.1980. He was again irregular in his attendance. He remained on duty upto 21.1.1981. Thereafter, he again absented from duty without any leave. He was informed by the Markfed vide letter dated 3.2.1981 to join the duty but he failed to resume the same. A telegram was also sent to him on 10.2.1981 asking him to join the duty but he did not respond. The Markfed was thus left with no alternative except to terminate his services and thus his services were terminated vide order dated 16.2.1981. He worked for only 97 days. He issued a demand notice to the Markfed after more than five months of the termination of his services. Then, he filed an application under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (to be called as the Act) before the Government which referred industrial dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda. He filed claim petition before the Labour Court in October, 1982 contending that his services have been terminated without any notice, charge-sheet, inquiry or compensation. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court framed the following issues :-

(i) Whether the order of termination of services of the workman is justified ?

(ii) Relief.

3. After hearing the representatives of both the parties and examining the evidence on record, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court vide impugned award dated 27.5.1987 held that the workman is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back-wages. Feeling aggrieved therewith as noted supra, both the parties have filed the above- mentioned petitions.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court with due care and circumspection.

5. Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate appearing on behalf of Markfed eloquently urged that order of termination dated 16.2.1981 is discharge simpliciter, which is neither stigmatic nor punitive in nature as it does not cast any aspersion on the work and integrity of the workman and thatbeing so, no inquiry was required to be held. Furthermore, the same has been passed in conformity with the terms and conditions of appointment letter. In this order, there are no words used by the Management against the workman which could convey the intention of Markfed to stigmatize him or to convey the sense of inefficiency or negligence in the discharge of his duties. It has been authoritatively pronounced that the services of a probationer can be terminated during his probation period without holding any inquiry. Thus the findings recorded by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court are contrary to the law laid down from time to time. To fortify these submissions, h