IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13239 of 1992 Date of decision:-2.5.2008. Devinder Kumar Upadhaya ...Petitioner. Versus The Presiding Officer and another. ...Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J. The petitioner has impugned the award dated 6.4.1992 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh vide which reference has been answered against him. The petitioner was appointed as Tracer in the Haryana State Co-operative Supply and Marketing Federation Limited on 18.5.1982. His services were terminated on 25.7.1983. The petitioner raised the industrial dispute and on reference the Labour Court has declined to grant any relief to the workman on the ground that as per condition no.2 of his appointment letter he was to remain on probation for a period of 2 years and his services could be dispensed with at any time within a period of the said 2 years. It has been averred on behalf of the petitioner that his case is squarely covered by the decision of CWP No. 579 of 1985 decided on 4.6.1993. We find the same is not applicable to the facts and C.W.P. No. 13239 of 1992 -2- circumstances of the present case. As in the present writ petition the petitioner was engaged as a Tracer on probation for a period of 2 years his services were dispensed with prior to the expiry of the probation period. Apart from above, it has also been averred on behalf of the petitioner that his case is similar to that of Vijay Kumar who was ordered to be re-instated with full back wages by the Labour Court. In this regard, perusal of the order shows that Vijay Kumar was not on probation at the time of his removal and hence the case of the petitioner is not par with that of Vijay Kumar. In view of the above facts, the services of the petitioner have been terminated as par the terms and conditions of his appointment letter hence it cannot be said that there is violation of any statutory rules and regulations. In M.Venugopal versus The Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India reported in 1994 (1) SLR page 855 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when a person is appointed on probation than the provisions of section 25(f) of the Industrial Disputes Act would not be attracted. In view of above, the present writ petition is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) MAY 2, 2008 JUDGE ritu.II