The State Industrial Court did number accept this plea and while setting aside the reinstatement order held that the appellant was entitled to retrenchment companypensation and companysequently remanded the case for determination of what that companypensation should be.
Against this order respondents 3 to 5 filed a revision application under s. 15 5 of the Act before the State Industrial Court at Nagpur.
1n that revision, an application was made by the respondents for amendment of the revision petition raising a plea for the first time that the appellant being a retrenched employee was number anemployee under the provisions of the Act.
By a companymon judgment, the High Court allowed the application of respondents 3 to 5 holding that the appellant was number an employee within the meaning of s. 2 10 of the Act as his dismissal, discharge or removal was number on account of an industrial dispute.
That Court set aside the order on August 12, 1953, and remanded the case for a fresh decision as to whether the appellant was a permanent employee and whether he was illegally retrenched.
226 of the Constitution in the High Court for modification of the order of the State Industrial Court and for reinstatement with back wages and companytinuity of service along with all its privileges.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated the 11th March 1967 of the Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench at Nagpur in Special Civil Application Nos.
Against this order respondents 3 to 5 filed a petition under Arts.
These two appeals are with certificate against that judgment.
5 After the appointment the appellant was on probation for a period of six months and since that period was number extended it is his companytention that he is a permanent employee inasmuch as the standing orders which came into force on September 30, 1961 made an employee on probation permanent after companypletion of one years probationary period.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal 1188 1189 of 1969.
Respondents 3 to 5 filed a revision before the State Industrial Court under s. 16 5 of the Act.
Both these petitions were heard together by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur.
345 and 575 of 1966.
W. Dhabe and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant B. Wad and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents 3 4 in A. 11 88 and respondents 4 5 in C. A. 11 89 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. The appellant was appointed as a motor driver in the Milk Scheme at Nagpur by the Regional Dairy development Officer on December 10, 1959 and on February 29,1962 his services were terminated by the orders of the Dairy Development Commissioner, Bombay Respondent No.
The termination was, also said to be illegal as it was brought about by an authority which had number appointed him.
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
On March 20, 1962, the, appellant filed an application before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Nagpur, under s. 16 of the C. P. and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act praying for reinstatement with back wages and companytinuity of employment.
In this view, the appellants petition was dismissed.
The Assistant Labour Commissioner who heard the petition set aside the order of termination and directed respondents 3 to 5 to reinstate the appellant with back wages and companytinuity of service in as much as it was held that the appellant having companypleted the probationary period of one year became a permanent employee.
In this view, the other companytentions raised by the appellant were number decided.
In the result respondents 3 to 5 were directed to reinstate the appellant with back wages and companytinuity of service.
The appellant also filed a petition under Art.
