JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - By this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner U. P. Cooperative Spinning Mills Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Mills, has sought a writ of certiorari for quashing the award of the Labour Court, Agra dated 30th June 1972 as published in the U. P. gazette dated 19th Aug. 1972. 2. An advertisement was issued by the Mills in the Hindi daily `Jagran' calling for applications for the purposes of the appointment to a post of a clerk in the said mills. Respondent No. 3. Mahendra Kumar Shukla applied on 30th July 1967 for appointment on the said post. He was selected and ultimately by an appointment letter dated 18/20th Oct. 1967, Annexure A-l, to the petition, Mahendra Kumar Shukla was appointed as a clerk in the mills in the scale of Rs. 100-180 plus dearness allowances at the State Government rates admissible from time to time on probation of six months. In the said appointment letter it was further provided that the Management reserved the right to terminate the services of respondent No. 3. during the period of probation without notice and without assigning a cause. It was further provided that he shall be confirmed by separate letter of confirmation after the expiry of the satisfactory period of probation and there shall be nothing like automatic confirmation. A power was further given to the mills to extend the period of probation. 3. Respondent No. 3 took over charge on 20th Nov. 1967 in terms of the appointment letter and joined the post of the Provident Fund clerk in the mills. Six months probationary period of respondent No. 3 expired on 20th May, 1968. By an order dated 15th June 1968 the Secretary of the mills extended the probationary period of respondent No. 3. for another six months with effect from 20th May, 1968. This period was to expire on 20th Nov. 1968. The Secretary of the mills by an order dated 14th Nov. 1968 terminated the services of respondent No. 3. with effect from 19th Oct. 1968. 4. Respondent No. 3. thereafter represented before the Conciliation Officer, Agra, against the action of the mills terminating his services. Ultimately the State Government by an order dated 30th Jan. 1971 referred the dispute in regard to the validity of the termination order for decision to the Labour Court, Agra. with effect from 19th Oct. 1968. 4. Respondent No. 3. thereafter represented before the Conciliation Officer, Agra, against the action of the mills terminating his services. Ultimately the State Government by an order dated 30th Jan. 1971 referred the dispute in regard to the validity of the termination order for decision to the Labour Court, Agra. The said reference was numbered as adjudication case No. 43 of 1971. The Labour Court, Agra, by its award dated 30th June 1972 held that the termination order was not valid in law and directed that respondent No. 3. be reinstated and he be treated to be in continuous service and that wages be paid to him from 20th October, 1968 till the day he takes charge. This award has been challenged in the present petition. 5. Sri S. C. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner Mills has contended before us that the Labour Court, Agra, has committed a manifest error of law in ignoring the terms and conditions of the appointment of respondent No. 3. and the mills and has wrongly relied upon para 3, sub-cls. (b) and (c) of the Standing Orders applicable to the mills. It is further contended that there was no rule for automatic confirmation and since no order for confirmation had been passed after the expiry of the period of probation the view of the Labour Court, Agra that respondent No. 3. became a confirmed employee is a view manifestly erroneous. 6. It is admitted between the parties that Standing Orders have been framed for the workmen of the mills. The relevant els. (b) and (c) of Standing Order, 3, applicable to the case are quoted below: "(b) A `permanent workman is a workman : who has been engaged on a permanent basis "and includes, any person who has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months in the same or another occupation in the industrial establishment. (c) A `probationer' is a workman who is provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy and has not completed three months in that occupation." 7. The appointment letter dated 18/20th Oct. 1967 appointed the petitioner on probation for a period of six months. (c) A `probationer' is a workman who is provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy and has not completed three months in that occupation." 7. The appointment letter dated 18/20th Oct. 1967 appointed the petitioner on probation for a period of six months. There was further clause, as stated above, entitling the mills to extend the period of probation and it was further' provided that the confirmation shall be done by a separate letter after the expiry of the satisfactory period of probation. From a perusal of the terms of the appointment letter it is clear that the terms and conditions are inconsistent with the Standing Orders applicable to the workman of the mills as under the Standing Orders the period of probation is only three months and, there is no power given to the mills for extending the period of probation. In Western India Match Co. v. Workman ( AIR 1973 SC 2650 ): (1973 Lab IC 1602) the Supreme Court held that an employer cannot enter into an agreement with a workman which is inconsistent with the Standing Orders of the company. The terms of the Standing Orders would prevail over the corresponding terms in the contract of service. In view of the above-mentioned principle laid down by the Supreme Court the Labour Court, Agra, has rightly not given effect to the terms and conditions as laid down in the appointment letter Annexure A-l and as such the contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner in this regard, has no substance. 8. The further submission made by the learned counsel that there cannot be any automatic confirmation after the expiry of the period of probation and that respondent No. 3 could only have been treated as having been confirmed if the specific order had been passed by the mills also has no merit. Standing Order (b) quoted above provides that at permanent workman is a workman who has been engaged on a permanent basis and includes any person who has satisfactorily completed a probationary period of three months. The moment it is j established that a person has completed three months probationary period satisfactorily he would come under the definition of a permanent workman as defined in the standing orders. In the circumstances no question would arise of passing any further order of confirmation after the expiry of the period of three months. The moment it is j established that a person has completed three months probationary period satisfactorily he would come under the definition of a permanent workman as defined in the standing orders. In the circumstances no question would arise of passing any further order of confirmation after the expiry of the period of three months. In case, however, the work is not satisfactory then it is open to the mills to terminate the service of the per-1 son before the completion of three months period. 9. In our opinion the Standing Order, 3, sub-clause (b) automatically makes a workman a permanent workman after the expiry of the period of three months if before that period this services are not terminated. This in fact is a term of automatic confirmation. The only condition precedent required by the workman before he could avail of the benefit of this clause is that the workman should have satisfactorily completed the probationary period of three months as required by the definition. In the instant case the Labour Court, Agra, has recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner-mill has failed to prove that respondent No. 3, had not satisfactorily completed the probationary period of three months which expired on 19th Feb. 1968. In view of this finding the Labour Court has rightly held that respondent No. 3. is a confirmed employee after the expiry of the period of three months from the date he took over charge, i. e. with effect from 19th Feb. 1968 as he took over charge on 20th November, 1967. In our opinion there is no manifest error in the view which the Labour Court, Agra has taken treating respondent No. 3. as a permanent workman. 10. In the circumstances we do not find any error in the award given by the Labour Court, Agra requiring interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. 11. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed with costs