JUDGMENT :

Yashwant Varma, J.

Heard Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel. Although the respondent workman is duly represented, none has appeared when the matter was called.

2. The petitioner assails the validity of the award dated 11 May 2017 in terms of which the Labour Court has answered a reference in favour of the respondent workman. It has proceeded to annul an order of 31 March 1996 which it has recognized to be one of retrenchment and directed payment of full back wages.

3. According to the petitioner, the respondent workman was appointed as a Stitcher (Trainee) in terms of a letter of appointment dated 21 March 1995. The aforesaid appointment order further provided that he would be appointed with effect from 01 April 1995. The appointment letter further prescribed that the respondent workman would be on probation for a period of six months and during this period, his services would be terminable without any notice. The appointment letter further stipulated that on the expiry of the period of probation, the respondent workman would be confirmed in service in accordance with an order made in writing to that effect and upon the management finding that his work was satisfactory. This very stipulation empowered the petitioner to extend the period of probation.

4. The relevant clauses of the appointment order are extracted hereinbelow :

''2. You will be on Probation for a period of six months w.e.f. the date of your joining duties with us. During the probationary period, your services are terminable without any notice on either side or payment in lieu thereof.

3. On expiry of Probationary Period, you will be confirmed in services of the Company in writing provided in the opinion of the Management your work is considered satisfactory at the discretion of the Management your work is not found satisfactory your services can either be terminated or your Probation Period can be extended twice for a period of six months each. During the extended period of probation also, your services are terminable without any notice or payment on either side. After your confirmation in the services of the Company, in writing your services are terminable by giving one month's (30 days) notice on either side or payment of one month's salary in lieu of notice.''

5. On 01 December 1995, the probationary period of the respondent workman was extended till 31 March 1996. That order was in the following terms :

''This is with reference to the letter of appointment dated 1.4.95 appointing you as ''Trainee'' on Probation.

Please note that your performance during the probation period has not been satisfactory and as such your probation is extended till 31st March, 1996.

Unless, therefore, you improve your performance, the management shall be constrained to terminate your probationary appointment.''

6. A few days before the date when the probation period of the respondent workman would have come to an end, the petitioner passed an order of 29 March 1996 stating that his services would stand terminated on expiry of the probationary period of appointment. Alongwith that order, they also tendered one month's notice pay and fifteen days wages towards retrenchment compensation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the respondent workman appears to have move the appropriate Government for reference of an industrial dispute. It is in the aforesaid backdrop and pursuant to the reference made by the appropriate Government on 25 October 2007 that the impugned award has come to be made.

7. The Labour Court has principally placed reliance upon the evidence led by the respondent workman to hold that there appeared to be a serious dispute with regard to the date from which the respondent workman was initially engaged. It has also doubted the extension of the probation period of the respondent workman by noting that although his performance was appraised on 29 December 1995, the petitioner appears to have extended the pro