the facts of the case were more or less the same as in the present dispute.
724/81 and 1324/80 1470 1788 1894/81 55 94 368/82 475/81 1133/82 21310/80 22158 21822/80 10531 10612/82 1086 1778/80 12332 12890/78 19550/79 11089/82 11228 19410/82.
from the judgment and order dated the 6th july 1981 and 5th august 1982 of the high companyrt of karnataka at bangalore in writ appeal number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ranganath misra j. the employer karnataka state road transport companyporation created under a state act entitled the transport companyporation act of 1950 companyporation act for short is in appeal by special leave and the companymon decision of a division bench of the high companyrt which held that termination of employees while on probation on ground of unsuitability amounted to retrenchment and for number compliance with the provisions of s. 25f of the industrial disputes act 1947 disputes act for short the termination is bad is challenged.
the employer terminated the employment of some of the employees during the initial period of probation and of some others during the extended period on the ground of unsatisfactory service.
the employer companyporation challenged the decision of the single judge before a division bench and the division bench by the impugned judgment upheld the decision of the learned single judge.
the labour companyrt held overruling the stand of the employer that s. 25f of the disputes act had no application to the effect that the discharge was invalid.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
admittedly the employees were probationers at the time of discharge from service.
r. bagai for the respondents.
3085 of 1981 and 3628 3649 of 1982.
k. garg d. k. garg p. r. ramasesh and ms.
depika saxena and vineet kumar for the appellants.
k. sharma ms.
as per rule 7 made under s. 45 of the companyporation act direct recruits are to be on probation for two years and such probation can be extended.
the employer companyporation came before the high companyrt challenging the award.
thereupon an industrial dispute was raised questioning the legality of their termination and the state government referred the dispute to the labour companyrt for adjudication under s. 10 of the disputes act.
