1. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the award dated 20th June 1963 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in Mysore, Bangalore, and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to his original post of an accountant.

2. The facts of this case are very simple. The petitioner was appointed as an accountant, on probation for a period of six months in the first instance on 30th March, 1959 in the office of the respondent. He joined service on 7th April 1959. On 5th October 1959, the respondent extended his period of probation for a period of four months with effect from 7th October 1959. On 1-4-1960 the respondent issued another order extending the services of tile petitioner for a period of six months with effect from 7th February 1960. On 6-6-1960 the petitioner was served with a notice; to th8 effect that his service will be terminated from 7th July 1960.
On receipt of this notice the petitioner served on the respondent a lawyer's notice on 22nd June 1960 making certain allegations against the management and questioning their right to terminate his services. The respondent issued a further notice on 28th June 1960 to the petitioner informing him that his conduct in issuing the lawyer's notice containing false and incorrect allegations amounted to misconduct and that the management was obliged in the interest of maintenance of discipline amongst the members of the staff to terminate his services as accountant on probation forthwith. Thereafter there was a reference made by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal under S.10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The main question referred to the Tribunal was as regard's the legality and propriety of the termination of the services of the petitioner and of his right to reinstatement with back wages. Besides these contentions, there was also a contention as regards the nature of the petitioner's services viz., whether he continued to be on probation at the date of the impugned notice of termination. On the evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner was still a probationer, that by virtue of the standing orders as also by the terms of the order of appointment, the management could have terminated the petitioner's services by a day's notice, and that the notice dated 28th June 1960 was invalid and inoperative. Having held so, the Tribunal addressed itself to the question of the relief to which the petitioner was entitled. It came to the conclusion that the petitioner's services had been validly terminated by a notice dated 6-6-1960 and that according to that notice be should get 30 days salary till 6-6-1960. In view of this finding the Tribunal passed an award directing the respondent to pay to the petitioner his salary for the period from 28th June 1960 till his services were deemed to be terminated on 7th July 1960.
2a. The petitioner challenges the validity of this award before this Court. Mr. Jagannatha Shetty the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner does not press the contention that his client had become permanent even though no order of confirmation had been passed in the case. He has however argued that the management had no authority to terminate his services before the expiry of the period of probation and that the order of termination of his services dated 28th June 1960 for misconduct was bad in law as he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charge. He has further contended that the order dated 28th June 1960 having been held to be illegal, the only order which the Tribunal could have passed, is one of his reinstatement and not of directing respondent merely to pay the salary from 28th June 1960 to 7th July 1960.
So the first contention that requires consideration is about the competence of the respondent to terminate the petitioner's service before the expiry of the period of probation. In this connection reference may be made firstly to the relevant portion of the ord