2 hereinafter referred to as the respondent who was employed pursuant to an appointment order dated 10 9 1974 for a period of 11 months to be on probation and to be companytinued only on satisfactory companypletion of the probation but by an order made on 8 9 1975 his services were terminated.
Firstly, he companytended that the appointment of the respondnent was for a period and if it is for a period his termination was in terms of Section 2 oo proviso bb that on being brought to his numberice that on the date of this termination of the services of Respondent the said provision was number available he did number pursue with this line of argument.
The Labour Court held that the termination of the services of the respondents did number companyply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and therefore illegal and directed his reinstatement with wages at Rs.
This order was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court.
137/ per month which was the last drawn wage or the minimum wages permissible under the Minimum Wages Act whichever is higher till the date of his reinstatement.
On the ground that he had been illegally retrenched from service, a dispute was raised under the Industrial Disputes Act for short the Act and the matter was referred to the Labour Court.
In this Court the learned companynsel for the appellant raised several companytentions of which two are important in relation to termination of the services of the respondent.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
In this appeal the aggrieved employer is the appellant.
His case is that respondent No.
