IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 7 of 2006. Decided on: March 18, 2011. Puni Chand. ……….Appellant. Versus H.R.T.C. & ors. ……….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the appellant : Mr. V.D. Khidtta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The respondent has come up in an appeal against the judgment dated 2.3.2006 in CWP No. 1284 of 2002. The writ petition was filed by the respondents herein challenging the award passed by the Labour Court. As per the award dated 4.5.2002, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with 20% back wages. That was challenged by the Corporation. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, set aside the award and answered the reference in negative. We find that the interference thus made by learned Single Judge is based on the admission made by the petitioner in his statement to the effect that he was on probation and only during the probation period, he was discharged from service since his work and conduct was not satisfactory. According to the petitioner there was no material before the Labour Court or before this Court to establish that the workman was on probation. We are afraid that this contention cannot be appreciated. In the reply filed by the Management before the Labour Court, it is stated clearly at paragraph-3 as follows: 2 “3. In reply to this para, it is submitted that during the probation period of years his work and conduct was not found satisfactory and as such the probation period was extended by one year w.e.f. 6.3.92 to 5.3.93. During his probation period from his re-appointment i.e. from 6.3.1990, he was involved in 14 cases of ticketless traveling, as such the Regional Manager Baijnath dispensed with the services of Sh. Puni Chand Conductor.” 2. The details of 14 cases are also furnished alongwith the reply. It is seen from those factual particulars that in all the 14 cases, the petitioner was warned thrice and on two occasions the increment was stopped. The petitioner had also filed a rejoinder before the Labour Court, wherein it is not denied that he was on extended period of probation. Thus, the view taken by learned Single Judge that on the admitted facts in the pleadings, it was not required for the Management to establish that the workman was on probation and that the discharge from probation was on account of the proven dis-satisfactory conduct and performance of the workman. 3. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in the judgment and the appeal stands dismissed, so also the pending application(s) if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. March 18, 2011. ( Justice V.K. Ahuja), (vs/vt) Judge.