(1.) Heard.
(2.) Mr. Dankh, learned Counsel for, the respondents supports the order and submits that the petitioner was on probation. The petitioner is not retrenched as such provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, would not be applicable. The learned Counsel submits that the termination is not stigmatic and the same is in tune with the terms of the appointment order and the Service Regulations.
(3.) With the assistance of the learned Counsels, I have gone through the "judgments. The factual matrix that the petitioner was appointed on 14.10.1998 on probation vide appointment order of the even date is not disputed. Show cause notice was issued against the petitioner alleging acts of misconduct but subsequently while issuing the order of termination, the said charges were not pressed and simpliciter termination order was issued on the ground of unsatisfactory work. In the case of V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and others referred supra, the Apex Court in the facts of the said case had held that the termination of the service of an employee on the ground of unsatisfactory work was stigma tic.