Letters Patent Appeal No.387 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.387 of 2009 Date of decision: 7.9.2009 *** Talib Hussain ...Appellant Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.S.KHEHAR. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr.G.S.Verma, Advocate for the appellant. S.D.ANAND, J. The appellant's plea for reinstatement into the employment of the respondent proceeded on the premise that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with before his termination came about. The plea did not find favour with the Labour Court, which upheld the respondent's plea that the services of appellant were terminated during the period of probation and in accordance with the terms and conditions of employment. Luck did not find favour the appellant either before the learned Single Bench of this Court. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal. There is consistent finding of fact that though the appellant had been in the employment of the respondent for an earlier period as well, there was a gap before he was, on an application filed by him, appointed afresh Letters Patent Appeal No.387 of 2009 -2- **** (Annexure P/2) and his period of probation started with effect from 5.7.1994. He had accepted the fresh employment on terms and conditions offered by the respondent. This appointment had no element of continuity or relatability to the earlier employment. The termination of service came about on 3.12.1994 which (termination) was in terms of Clause D of the appointment letter. In that context, we would extract hereunder the following fact based observations made by the Labour Court:- “A joint reading of documents Ex.M-1, Ex.M-2, Ex.M-3 and Ex.M-9 shows that the claimant was appointed on probation for a period of six months vide letter Ex.M-2 and the services of the claimant were terminated during the probatio period vide document Ex.M-4. The execution of documents Ex.M-1 to Ex.M-5 are fully proved by the respondent. MW-1 and MW-2 witnesses of the respondent have categorically stated that the claimant was appointed on probation for a period of 6 months and his services were terminated during the probation period.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has not been able to fault the correctness of the above factual observations made by the learned Labour Court which were, in turn, affirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. In that view of things, the appellant cannot have a valid grievance qua the non-stigmatic termination of his services during the probation period. The impugned termination does not attract the applicability of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act. Dismissed. (S.D.ANAND) JUDGE September 07, 2009 (J.S.KHEHAR) Pka JUDGE