( 1. ) THIS order will govern the disposal of Miscellaneous Petition No. 68 of 1967.

( 2. ) THE circumstances in which these two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been filed are that Jagdish Mitra Sharma, the petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No. 48 of 1967, was employed as a textile designing tracer by the Jiyajee Rao Cotton Mills, Ltd. , Gwalior (hereinafter referred to as the mills), the petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition No. 68 of 1967. The employment commenced on 5 July 1963 and was made subject to certain terms and conditions agreed to by the parties in writing. One of the conditions was that Jagdish Mitra Sharma would be on probation " till six months "; the other was that during the period of probation the employees services would be liable to termination at any time without notice. On 3 May 1965 the factory manager of the mills addressed a letter to Sharma terminating his services with effect from 23 May 1965 saying that his services were not needed and adding that his " services were not found satisfactory. "

( 3. ) THE employee after approaching the mills, filed an application under Section 31 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh. Industrial Relations Act, 1960, before the labour court, Gwalior, challenging the legality of the order of the employer terminating his services. The labour court found that Sharma became a permanent employee ; and that the order of the mills terminating his services was " arbitrary and improper " inasmuch as his services were terminated contrary to the standing orders without giving to the employee one months notice or paying him wages for one month in lieu of notice. The presiding Judge of the labour court farther held that even if under the standing orders unsatisfactory service" did not constitute misconduct, yet an enquiry by the employer was necessary before terminating Sharmas services. He observed: The employer has proved the mis-conduct before this Court also. The employer had not made an enquiry and it was open for him to prove the mics-conduct but instead he has merely relied on the argument that applicant was a probationer and termination is valid. Then he made the observation that-I do not deem it necessary to allow the employer to prove that applicants work was unsatisfactory, because it was for the employer to have willingly offered to prove the work to be unsatisfactory when there was no enquiry at all. The employer had during the whole trial not tried to prove the work to be unsatisfactory. On this view, the labour court set aside the order of termination of Sharmas services and made a direction for his reinstatement and payment of full back-wages.

( 4. ) THE mills then preferred a revision petition before the industrial court against the decision of the labour court. The learned Judge of the industrial court did not think it necessary to decide whether Sharma was a permanent employee or on probation at the time his service were terminated as, in his view, in either case the employer should have held an enquiry into the " misconduct" alleged against him or proved the misconduct in the labour court. He then observed: The labour court has given a finding that there was no proof of any unsatisfactory work. Under standing Order 11 the petitioner is bound to give the reasons for terminating the services of the employee. Once it is held that there is no proof of unsatisfactory work, then the employer has to gives some reasons for terminating the service of the employee and in absence of such reasons the order of termination would be bad and illegal. Therefore, there is no force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner-company. The question whether the work of the non-applicant was satisfactory or not is a question of fact which having been decided against the petitioner company cannot be challenged in a revision petition under Section 66 of the Act. Accordingly, the employers revision petition for restoring the order terminating Shar