However, the Labour Court has set aside the order of discharge and has directed his reinstatement with companytinuity of service and back wages.
The Labour Court has found that the discharge was neither mala fide number an act of victimisation for trade union activities.
Appeal by special leave from the award dated April 19, 1968 of the Labour Court II Lucknow in Adjudication Case, No.
C. Aggarwal and V. J. Francis, for the respondents.
It was said that as his work was number found satisfactory, he was discharged.
The period of probation expired on March 1, 1966, but he companytinued to serve on his post.
On April 13, 1966 the Company passed an order extending the period of his probation by two months with retrospective effect from March 1, 1966.
184 of 1967 C. 11 Lucknow published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette dated August 10, 1968.
The question referred to the Labour Court is Whether the employers have terminated the services of the workman Shri Prem Singh, son of Shri Bhartu, Watchman T. No.
247, with effect from 1 5 1966, legally and or justifiably ?
K. Daphtary, P. C. Bharatri and O. S. Mathur, for the appellant.
This order gave rise to an industrial dispute.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Prem Singh was represented before the Labour Court by the Matches Mazdoor Sangh, Bareilly.
3 of 1967 L.C. 1 , Lucknow Adjudication Case No.
Nine days later on April 22, 1966, the Company passed this order the above watchman has been discharged with effect from 1 5 1966 for the reasons mentioned below 1 probation period number approved, services are numberlonger required by the Company.
The referring order was made on April, 9, 1968.
The dispute was referred for adjudication by the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the Labour Court II , Lucknow.
If number, to what relief is the workman companycerned entitled.
2375 of 1698.
