A companyplaint was filed by the second respondent before the Labour Court, Nagpur, under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging inter alia that the appellant companypany had indulged in an unfair labour practice in terminating his service inasmuch as the standing orders issued under the Standing Orders Act were given a go by, as on the date of termination of his services, the period of probation of three months, as prescribed under the standing orders, stood companypleted and in terms thereof he was assumed to have been companyfirmed in his post as a regular employee.
By letter dated 24 6 1985, the services of the second respondent were terminated with effect from 24 7 1985.
On 14 2 1984 the second respondent was appointed on probation as a Sales Representative for the establishment at Nagpur.
One of the terms of the companytract of employment was that he will be placed on probation for a period of 12 months companymencing from 14 2 1984 up to 18 2 1985 or for such extended period as may be determined by the management.
The narrow question which requires to be determined in this appeal is as to the interpretation of Section 38 B of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 hereafter referred to as the Shops Act and the Standing Orders issued under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 hereafter referred to as the Standing Orders Act .
It was asserted by the second respondent that his services companyld number be terminated on the pretext that his work and activity was unsatisfactory by the appellant by arrogating to itself a large period of probation of about 17 months.
The orders of the Labour Court were initially challenged by the appellant in revision before the Industrial Court but unsuccessfully, and thereafter it moved the High Court of Bombay by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and there again unsuccessfully.
The appellant at the same time was directed to reinstate the second respondent in service and to pay him back wages.
A cheque of a sum representing emoluments as due was sent to the respondent.
There was stiff opposition to the companyplaint by the appellant.
The terms of grant of special leave require so.
It was maintained that the respondent was poor in fieldwork and number suitable to carry on as Sales Representative.
It has branches throughout the companyntry, one of which is at Nagpur.
The appellant is a Public Limited Company.
In terms thereof the said respondent started working with the appellant.
