Lahiri, J.- What is the security or tenue of services of the workmen on probation in the tea estates of Assam governed by 'the Certified Standing Orders' delineating their condition of services and the terms of the employment ? Whether the services of a workman on probation for six months could be terminated by the implorer within the probationary period or trial period ? Whether a probat­ioner on completion of the maximum period of probation is confir­med in the post, if the standing order so provides ? What is the contour of the employer's power to terminate the services of a probationer during the period of probation or at the end of the period of probation ? These are the precise questions posed in this writ application under Article 226 of the Consti­tution by the management directed against the impugned award dated 5.11.76 made by the labour Court, Gauhati in Reference Case No. 29 of 1973. By the impugned award the Labour court has set aside the orders of termination of two workmen, one during the period of probation and the other after he had co­mpleted his probationary period, and directed reinstatement with back wages. 2. The factual matrix relevant for the purpose of this case :-M/s. Monierkhal Tea Estate is owned by Sonai River Tea Company Limited. The management appointed Dr. D.K. Saha as an Assistant Medical Officer of the Tea Estate w.e.f. 9.6.72 after holding an interview. It was stipulated in the letter of appointment that the period of his probation would be for six months and if he could satisfy the Management with his work he would be offered a permanent appointment. The manageme­nt also appointed Shri S.K. Paul as the Third Factory Babu w.e.f. 16.8.1972. His period of probation was also for six months and it was stipulated that if he could satisfy the Management with his work he would be made permanent. Both the appointments were made by the Manager in accordance with the provisions of "the Standing Orders". Dr. Saha completed the probationary period of six months on 9.12.72. After the period of probation was over the Manager of the Tea Estate by his letter dated 16.12.1972, terminated the services of Dr. Saha w.e.f December 31, 1972, which is extracted below : "SONAI RIVER TEA CO. LTD. Monierkhal Tea Estate, P.O. Monierkhal, Dist. Dr. Saha completed the probationary period of six months on 9.12.72. After the period of probation was over the Manager of the Tea Estate by his letter dated 16.12.1972, terminated the services of Dr. Saha w.e.f December 31, 1972, which is extracted below : "SONAI RIVER TEA CO. LTD. Monierkhal Tea Estate, P.O. Monierkhal, Dist. Cachar, Date : 16th December, 1972 Name : Shri D.K. Saha, Designation : A.M.O., Monierkhall Tea Estate Dear Sir, As the Director of this Company advised me to dis­charge you from the Co's service. I regret to inform you that your services is no longer required by this company with effect from 31st December, 1972 Yours faithfully. Sd/-K.M. Paul, Manager" The services of Shri S.K. Paul, the other workman were te­rminated by the Manager by his letter dated 16.12.1972 which is extracted herein below : "The 16th Decr./72 Name-Shri S.K Pal, Designation-3rd Factory Babu. Momeerkh-lal Tea Estate, Dear Sir, As the Director of this Company advised me to disc­harge you from the Co's service. I regret to inform you that your service is no longer required by this Company with effect from 31st December, 1972. Yours faithfully, Sd/-K.M. Paul Manager. It is seen from the letter of termination of Shri S.K. Paul that his services were terminated before he had completed the probationary period of six months. Insofar as Dr. Saha is co­ncerned his services were terminated after he had completed the probationary period of six months. The purport of the terminat­ion is that one of the Directors of the Company had advised the Manager to discharge them from their services and, accordingly, the Manager informed the workmen that their services were no longer required. The Indian Tea Employees Union represe­nting the workmen of the Tea Estate espoused the causes of workmen and claimed that the orders of termination of the wo­rkmen were illegal, wrongful and without jurisdiction. The orders were in breach of the terms of "the Standing Orders” governing the job security or the condition of services of the workmen. An industrial dispute was raised and ultimately the Government referred the following disputes to the Labour Court, Gauhati for adjudication : (1) Whether the management of Monierkhal T.E. are justified in terminating services of Shri S.K. Paul 3rd Fa­ctory babu and Dr. An industrial dispute was raised and ultimately the Government referred the following disputes to the Labour Court, Gauhati for adjudication : (1) Whether the management of Monierkhal T.E. are justified in terminating services of Shri S.K. Paul 3rd Fa­ctory babu and Dr. D.K. Saha, A.M.O. from their services : (2) If not, are the above-named workmen entitled to re-instatement or any other relief in lieu thereof ? The case was registered and the parties were asked to file written statements. The management filed its written statement and claimed that the reference was not maintainable, it was barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. It claimed that the workmen were appointed on probation and their services were terminated as they were not required by the management. The Union representing the workmen claimed that the workmen were appointed on probation for six months and all along they rendered satisfactory services and accordingly the termination of their services were illegal. The Union claimed that even the appointing authority, namely the Manager was fully satisfied with their works and, accordingly, issued two certificates to them, which were filed before the Tribunal and marked here as Annexures 8' and 9' to the writ petition. The Manager who was the in-charge of the Tea Est­ate certified that Dr. Saha was well-experienced doctor, had good rapport with all and there was no complaint against him from any quarter. The workman was diligent, energetic and honest. The Manager regretted that he had to issue the order of dis­charge as ordered by the Director, but he was not aware of the cause which impelled Director to terminate the services. In­sofar as Shri S.K. Paul, the other workman was concerned the Manager stated that the workman was gentle, honest and he had no hesitation to recommend the workman to anyone who desired to employ a young person for factory work. The Manager also expressed that he had to serve the letter of termination as advised by the Director of the Company but he was not aware of the cause of the termination of the workman. The claim of the Union was that the termination of the services of Dr. Saha after he had completed the period of probation was invalid and illegal. The claim of the Union was that the termination of the services of Dr. Saha after he had completed the period of probation was invalid and illegal. Insofar as Shri S.K. Paul was concerned the case of union was that the order was illegal because his servi­ces were terminated before the expiry of the fixed probationary period of six months. It was contended that there was "no justifiable cause'' for terminating his services. The parties adduced no oral evidence. On behalf of the Union seven documents were put in evidence and on admission by the Management they were marked Annexure 1 to 7. The documents include the letters of appointment, the letters of termination of services of the wor­kmen as well as the certificates issued by the Manager. 3. Upon hearing both the parties the Labour Court held that there was no evidence to show that the reference was not maintainable or barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. It held that on 16.8.72 Shri Paul was appointed as Third Factory Babu on probation for six months on condition that he would be made permanent if he could 'satisfy the management with his work'. The period of probation was to expire on 15.2.73 but his services were terminated on 31.12.72, before the expiry of the period of probation and that too without any "justifiable cause". It held that the management never claimed that the services of the workmen were unsatisfactory or he was unfit to be con­firmed. The claim of the management was that it could termi­nate the services of the probationer at any time was rejected. The Labour court found that there was no material to show that the work of the concerned workman was unsatisfactory and/ or be was unsuitable for the job. Accordingly it held that the termination of services of Shri Paul was unwarranted and wit­hout any cause while the workman was rendering satisfactory services to the management and that the management was not justified in terminating his services. Insofar as the termination of doctor Saha was concerned it held that the services of the workman were terminated 23 days after the completion of his probationary period. Insofar as the termination of doctor Saha was concerned it held that the services of the workman were terminated 23 days after the completion of his probationary period. While consi­dering the question of validity of the orders terminating the ser­vices of the workman, the Labour court took into consideration Clause 1 of the Standing Orders and held that a probationer who had completed the probationary period of six months in the roll of the Tea Estate became a permanent workman and admittedly Dr. Saba had completed the specified period of his probation and, as such, he became permanent, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the "Standing Orders". It held that the services of Dr. Saha were not terminated on the ground that his services were unsatisfactory but on irrelevant consideration. The certificates issued by the Manager supported the claim of the workmen that they had rendered satisfactory services, accor­dingly, the Labour Court declared the orders of termination as illegal, unjust and arbitrary. Thereafter, the Labour Court con­sidered whether the workman were entitled to reinstatement and/ or any other relief and reached the conclusion that when the orders of termination were illegal the workmen were entitled to reinstatement and there was no plausible ground not to reinstate them. I also bed that the workmen were entitled to full back wages with all benefits to which they were entitled to from the date of termination of their services till their reinstatement. The management filed this writ petition on 3.6.76. The petitioner obtained a Rule and also an order from the High Court that pending disposal of the rule the implementation of the award should be stayed. 4. Mr. A.R. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the orders terminating the services of the workmen were ''termination simpliciter" which the Management could exercise at any time and for any cause. Learned counsel submits that the- services of the workmen were found to be un­satisfactory and/or they were found unsuitable by the management. The next contention is the Labour court in holding that Dr. Saba became a permanent workman after he had completed the period of probation. The Labour court erred in over-looking the provisions of Clause 1(b) of the Standing Orders while rea­ching the conclusion that Dr. Saha became a permanent workman. The other contention is that Dr. The next contention is the Labour court in holding that Dr. Saba became a permanent workman after he had completed the period of probation. The Labour court erred in over-looking the provisions of Clause 1(b) of the Standing Orders while rea­ching the conclusion that Dr. Saha became a permanent workman. The other contention is that Dr. Saha has already crossed the age of superannuation and as such the award of the Labour Court directing his reinstatement can not be implemented. The last sub­mission is that the certificates issued by the Manager to the work­men should not have been relied on and acted upon by the Labour court as the Management had dismissed the Manager and the latter issued the certificates just on the eve of his dismissal. These are the only submissions made by learned counsel for the peti­tioner-Management. 5. It is the common case of the parties that the job secu­rity and condition of services of the workmen of the Tea Estates in Assam are governed by the Standing orders duly certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. It is also the admitted position that under Clause-14 of the Standing Orders the Manager of the Tea Estate is personally responsible for the proper and faithful observance of the Stan­ding Orders. There is no wrangle at the bar that the doctrine of absolute freedom of contract by the employer has yielded to the higher claim of social justice. The Tight of the employer to dismiss a workman is controlled by the law to well-recog­nised limit in order to guarantee security of tenure to the Indus­trial workmen. It is too late in the day to assert absolute free­dom of an employer to impose any condition which he likes on Labour. The theory of ''hire and fire" which allows free scope tinder the doctrine of Maissez faire no longer holds the field. The inherent powers or the employees right to terminate the ser­vices of workman are controlled by the Industrial or Labour laws, the letters and spirit of the Constitution and the new jurispru­dence structured by the Supreme Court. 6. Who is a probationer, and what are his job security spe­cified by the certified "standing orders" framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 applicable to the Tea Estate ? 6. Who is a probationer, and what are his job security spe­cified by the certified "standing orders" framed under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 applicable to the Tea Estate ? The "Standing Orders" classify five categories of work­men-(1) Permanent; (2) Probationer; (3) Casual; (4) Tempo­rary and (5) Learner and stipulate the terms of employment and conditions of services of the workman. The relevant segments of the Standing orders are extracted : 1. Classification of workers. (a) A permanent worker is one who resides upon the tea estate and whose name is entered in the estate roll of workers and includes any person who has completed a probationary period of 6 months in the same or any other occupation in the industrial establishment, including bre­aks due to stickiness, accident, leave, lockout, strike (not illegal strike) or involuntary closure of the esta­blishment. (b) A ''Probationer is a workman who in provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy post and has not completed 6 months services therein. (Emphasis supplied) It is thus seen that a probationer is a workman who is provisionally employed to fill a permanent vacancy post and has not completed six months of service therein. It implies that "the trial period" or period of probation is for six mon­ths. There is no reserved power of the employer to extend the period. Clause 1 (a) bespeaks that a probationer, on completion of the probationary period of six months, statutorily acquires the status of a permanent workman. At the completion of the period of probation the services of a probationer may be termina­ted, if he is not found suitable or fit for the job on the basis of the assessment of his work during the trial period. If at the completion of the period of probation the services of the workman are not terminated on the aforesaid ground and he is allowed to continue in the post the workman is statutorily recognized as a permanent workman under clause 1 (a). It appears that the Standing Orders forbid the extension of period of probation beyond the fixed time and therefore, if a workman is allowed to continue in the post, on completion of the maxi­mum period of probation, the provisions of Clause 1 (a) of the Standing Orders indicate that he acquires the status of a permanent workman. It appears that the Standing Orders forbid the extension of period of probation beyond the fixed time and therefore, if a workman is allowed to continue in the post, on completion of the maxi­mum period of probation, the provisions of Clause 1 (a) of the Standing Orders indicate that he acquires the status of a permanent workman. These are the conclusions drawn on scru­tiny of the terms of the Standing Orders governing the conditions of services of a probationer employed in a tea estate. 7. Is it correct that the Employer can terminate the services of probationer at any time and for any cause ? Is it correct that the labour court can not adjudicate the validity of the termina­tion of the services of a probationer when the management claims that it was termination simpliciter ? Whether, in the instant case, the orders of termination were on account of inadequacy for the job or for any temperamental or relevant reasons for holding that the probationers I workmen were unsuitable for jobs ? Could the Employer terminate the services of the probationer "for any reasons" during the fixed period of probation and for after the probationer had completed the period of probation ? Is the award of reinsta­tement with full back wages bad, Illegal and without jurisdiction for any justifiable reasons ? To answer the questions posed by the petitioner it is necessary to consider as to who is proba­tioner and what are his protections provided in the Standing Orders and what is the law laid down by the Supreme Court touching the rights of the employers to terminate the services of a probationer. A workman on probation must show that he is capable of performing the required duties of the job or the position before he will be considered as permanently employed in such position. In fact, the employee/workman is on trial, his compe­tence and suitability remaining to be finally determined by the employer. The employer can discharge a probationer or may but confirm him in the permanent post if he is found to be incompetent or unsuitable and on no other consideration. The factors relevant to determine the job adequacy can be the basis for discharging a probationer or for not confirming him in the permanent post. The employer can discharge a probationer or may but confirm him in the permanent post if he is found to be incompetent or unsuitable and on no other consideration. The factors relevant to determine the job adequacy can be the basis for discharging a probationer or for not confirming him in the permanent post. Indeed, if a probationer is incompetent or unsuitable for the job or incapable of performing the required duties of the job or the position, he should not be retained or confirmed for the well-being of the industry and the Nation. When the period of probation is for a fixed period, say, six months, his services can not be terminated by the employer before the expiry of the fixed probationary period except on the ground of misconduct or other sufficient grounds on which the services of a permanent workman can be terminated At the end of the fixed period of probation the employer may termi­nate the services of a probationer if his work is unsatisfactory or be is found to be unsuitable for the post. In the absence of anything to the contrary contained in the service condition or the Standing Orders a probationer continues to be a proba­tioner. However, if the service conditions or the Standing Orders expressly or impliedly provide that on completion of proba­tionary period a probationer shall be confirmed in the perma­nent vacancy post the workman acquires the status of a perma­nent workman in terms of the statutory provisions contained in the Standing Orders/the Service rules. These principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court in (1) Express News Paper Limited vs. the Labour Court (1964) I LLJ 9 (11)- AIR 1964 SC 806 : (2) Agra Electric Supply Company vs. Aliadin, (1969) II LL/ 540- AIR 1970 SC 512 : (3) C. 5. Ramaswamy vs. Inspector General of Police AIR 1966 SC 175 ; State of U. P. vs. Akbar Ali Khan. AIR 1966 SC 1842 ; (5) State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1210 ; (6) Accountant General, Madhya Pradesh vs. BeniPrasad Bhatnagar, C.A. 458 of 1962 decided by the Supreme Court on 22.7.64 1964 SCN p. 8 Item-5; (7) D. A. Lyall vs Chief Conservator of Forest C- A. No. 259/63, decided by the Supreme Court on February 24, 1965 (8) Sukhant Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1711 . In State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh, (Supra No. 5) it has been held that where the Standing Orders/the Service conditions fix a definite time beyond which the probationary period cannot be extended and the probationer is allowed to continue in that post after completion of the maximum period of probation it is permissible to draw an inference that the workman allowed to continue in, the post has been confirmed in the permanent post, by implica­tion. It has further been held that when the period of pro­bation is fixed the workman has a guaranteed period to satisfy his competence and suitability during the whole period. His services cannot be terminated during the probationary period except on the ground of misconduct or other sufficient ground on which the services of a permanent workman may be termi­nated vide, (9) Utkal Machinery vs. Santi Patnaik (1966) 1 LLJ 398 - AIR 1966 SC 1051 . Their Lordships have further held that when the validity of the termination of services of a probatio­ner is challenged it would be open to the Industrial Tribunal to X-ray the order and discover its true nature to find out whe­ther the order of termination was bonafide exercise of the po­wer of the employer or not. The view has been reiterated in (10) The Management of Brooke Bond (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Y. K. Gautam, (1973) 2 LLJ 457- AIR 1973 SC 2634 . In Gautam (supra No. 10) the letter of appointment granted absolute discretion to the employer to extend the period of probation for a further period of three months and it also provided that the emplo­yer had the right to terminate the services of the probationer, "during the period of probation or during the extended period of probation or before confirmation in writing wi­thout notice and without assigning reasons whatsoever." The services of the probationer were terminated within the period of probation. The employer produced no evidence to show that the work of the probationer was unsatisfactory. The order of termination was set aside. Their Lordships relied on Utkal Machinery (supra No. 9) and held that the termination was capricious, unreasonable and unjustified. The employer produced no evidence to show that the work of the probationer was unsatisfactory. The order of termination was set aside. Their Lordships relied on Utkal Machinery (supra No. 9) and held that the termination was capricious, unreasonable and unjustified. However, it is pertinent to note that their Lordships have observed that on reinstate­ment of the workman, whose services had been terminated du­ring the probationary period, the employer should have an op­portunity of watching his work and should have the right and freedom to make up its mind as to whether the services of the workman should be retained or his services should be dispensed 'on justifiable grounds'' the period of probation specified in the Standing Orders cannot be extended by the employer. It would not be valid in law as the Standing Orders have statutory force -vide Agra Electric Supply Company (supra No. 2). To sustain the validity of an order terminating the services of a probationer in terms of the Standing Orders the employer has to specifically plead that during the probationary period the work of the proba­tioner was found to be unsatisfactory and/or he has found to be unsuitable for the job-vide Western India Match Company vs. Workman, (1973)2 LLJ 403 (407) AIR 1973 SC 2650 . It is thus seen that when the order of termination has been challenged before the Labour Court or Tribunal it is within its jurisdiction to consider as to whether the termination is in violation of the clause of the Standing Orders. The Tribunal can go into the within. It is the bur­den of the migrant to show that the order was rendered in bona fide exert it of that powers of the employer-vide (12) U. B. Dutta and Company vs. Workman, AIR 1963 SC 411 ; (13) Tata Oil Com­pany Ltd. vs. Workman Pvt. AIR 19C6 SC 1672; (14) Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs. & C. Prasad, (1969) 3 SCC 372 . 8. In the instant case as alluded to, the service conditions of the probationers are governed by the terms of the certified Standing Orders. The Standing Orders provide a fixed period of probation, i.e., six months. Ltd. vs. & C. Prasad, (1969) 3 SCC 372 . 8. In the instant case as alluded to, the service conditions of the probationers are governed by the terms of the certified Standing Orders. The Standing Orders provide a fixed period of probation, i.e., six months. Before the Labour Court the plea of the employer was that in exercise of the managerial ri­ght they could terminate the services of the probationers within the period of probation or even after the completion of the said period, and, for any reason whatsoever. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court we are constrained to hold that a probationer can not be discharged or his services can not be terminated during the fixed period of probation except on the ground of misconduct, which is not the case of the Management. The services of the probationer can not be terminated except on "justifiable ground” i.e., his inadequacy for the job or for any other temperamental or other relevant reasons not connected with moral turpitude. The letters of termination of the services of the workmen do not show that they were unsuitable for the jobs. No evidence or material was placed before the tribunal to show that the terminations were on account of inadequacy for the jobs or any other temperamental or cogent reasons for holding that the pr­obationers were unsuitable. It is interesting to note that the services of the workmen were terminated by "a director'' and the manager acted on his dictation. There is nothing to show that the said Director was authorised to adjudge suitability or job adequacy of the workmen. There is no material to show that the director was objectively satisfied that the workmen were unsuitable for the jobs. In the instant case, the manager of the tea estate was the appointing authority. He was in-charge of the tea estate. He was the competent person to decide suitabi­lity or job adequacy of the workmen. The orders of termination are not based on his satisfaction but that of someone else, who is not authorised by the Standing Orders to determine whether the workmen/probationers should be retained or their services were to be terminated. He was in-charge of the tea estate. He was the competent person to decide suitabi­lity or job adequacy of the workmen. The orders of termination are not based on his satisfaction but that of someone else, who is not authorised by the Standing Orders to determine whether the workmen/probationers should be retained or their services were to be terminated. In any view of the matter, no material was placed by the management to show that the wo­rkmen were unsuitable for the jobs and accordingly, the Labo­ur Court was justified in holding that the orders of terminat­ion were colourable, unjustified, capricious and unreasonable. Further, when the workmen contested the validity of the orders of termination it was the burden of the management to show that the works of the probationers were unsatisfactory which they have totally failed to show and, accordingly, the Labour Court was justified in setting aside the orders of termination. It has been urged that the certificates which were issued by the Manager showing that the workmen were competent and suitable for the jobs ought not to have been acted upon by the Labour Court. This point that the certificates were issued by the manager when he was dismissed or about to be dismissed by the employer was not taken before the Labour Court. Even if the certificates are not taken into consideration it goes without sa­ying that the management had failed to produce any material to show that the services of the workmen were unsatisfactory. There is no material to show that the certificates issued by the manager were false. Only before this Court the point has been taken up but no material has been placed before us to show that the certificates issued by the Manager contained incorrect statements. The management should have produced concrete ma­terial to show that the works of the workmen were unsatisfac­tory, which the management has miserably failed to show before the Labour Court as well as this Court. We are of the opin­ion that even if the certificates are not taken into consideration the findings of Labour Court must be sustained inasmuch as the management had failed to discharge its burden that the services of the workmen were unsatisfactory, it was not even pleaded by the management before the Labour Court that the works of the wo­rkmen were found unsatisfactory. As such, the contention that the award is bad because the Labour Court relied on the certi­ficates cannot be sustained at this end. We are also constrai­ned to hold that the management could not terminate the ser­vices of the workmen at any time on for any cause. We also hold that the management did not plead that the services of the workmen were found unsatisfactory and/or they were unsui­table for the jobs. No evidence was produced to that effect. The plea was that the employer could terminate the services of the workmen at any time and without any cause. As such, the contention fails. Admittedly, the services of Shri Paul (3rd Fa­ctory Babu) were terminated before he could complete the fixed term of his probation and that too without any justifiable ground. We are constrained to hold that the services of the pro­bationer could not be terminated during the probationary period except on the ground of misconduct, which is not the case of the management. In the result we hold that the findings of the Labour Court that the services of Shri Paul were terminated in violation of the terms of the Standing Orders is valid and legal. 9. The contention of Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Labour court erred in law in holding that Dr. Saba became a permanent workman after he had completed the period of probation for six months is untenable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and Clauses l(a) and (b) of the Standing orders. It is revealed from Clause 1(a) that After the expiry of six month?, the probationer is treated as "a permanent workman'' under the Standing Orders. In Western India Mach Company Ltd-(supra No. 11), (15) Salem Erode Elec­tricity Distribution Co. It is revealed from Clause 1(a) that After the expiry of six month?, the probationer is treated as "a permanent workman'' under the Standing Orders. In Western India Mach Company Ltd-(supra No. 11), (15) Salem Erode Elec­tricity Distribution Co. Ltd vs. Employees union (1966)1 LLJ 443 : AIR 1966 SC 08; State of Punjab vs. Dharam Singh, (supra No.5), (16) Avery India Limited vs. Second Industrial Tribunal-, (1972) II LLJ 255: AIR 1972 SC 1626 , (17) United Provinces Electrics Supply Company vs. T.N. Chatterjee, AIR 1972 SC 1201 , it has been ruled that where the Standing orders/the Service Rules fixes a definite time or period of probation beyond which it can not be extended and the probationer is allowed to continue in the post, it is permissible to draw an inference that the workman who is allowed to continue in the post has been confirmed therein by implication. The reason is that when the Standing orders forbid extension of the probationary period beyond the fixed term, the employer is forbidden to treat a workman as a probationer beyond the said period in violation of the statutory rules or the Standing Orders. It cannot be presumed that the extension has been made by the employed in breach of the Standing orders or the service Rules. It follows, therefore, that a workman allowed to continue in the post has been confirmed. However, in the instant case the position is more secured as Clause 1(b) of the Standing orders clearly ma­nifests that the period of probation is for six months, it cannot be extended. Clause 1(a) unequivocally states that a workman who has completed the probationary period of six months acqu­ires the status of a permanent workman. The right is recognised by the statutory Standing orders. We are of the opinion that a probationer acquires the status of a permanent workman, if he is allowed to continue in the post even without any express order of confirmation. The view finds support from a Special Bench decision of this Court in the Management of Dekorai Tea Estatn vs. Presiding Officer, 1974 ILR 26 Gau. 199. While construing the provisions of Clauses l(a) and (b) of the very same Standing Or­ders it has been held that after the expiry of the probationary period of six months a probationer acquires the status of a per­manent workman. 199. While construing the provisions of Clauses l(a) and (b) of the very same Standing Or­ders it has been held that after the expiry of the probationary period of six months a probationer acquires the status of a per­manent workman. It has been ruled that even when the work­man consented to continue as a probationer after six months of probationary period he acquired the status of permanent workman after the expiry of period of probation, if he was allowed to work in the post. It has been held that any other view would be violative of the express provisions of the service conditions of the workman enshrined in the Standing Orders, and, it would be aga­inst, the established policy. We are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court as well as a larger Bench decision of this Court. Accordingly, we hold that the labour court was justified in holding that Dr. Saha became a permanent workman after the expiry of his probationary period when the management allowed him to continue in the post. 10. The last contention of Mr. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the award of reinstatement with full back wages is bad in law. Plain common sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workman must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been in existence, and, accordingly, the workmen are entitled to reinstatement and back wages. There may be exceptional circumstances which might make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-a-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages say, where the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums or the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so forth. In such situations, there is vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. This is the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (18) Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd vs. Workers (1951)11 LLJ 314 (L.A.T.)-(1951-52)3 F.J.R.265; (19) Punjab National Bank vs. Their Workmen (1959) II LLJ. 666= AIR 1960 SC. 160 ; (20) Assam Oil Co. Ltd vs. Its Workmen, (1960) I LLJ 587- AIR 1960 SC 1264 : (21) Samnuggur Jute Factory Co. Ltd vs. Their Workmen, (1964) I LLJ. Ltd vs. Workers (1951)11 LLJ 314 (L.A.T.)-(1951-52)3 F.J.R.265; (19) Punjab National Bank vs. Their Workmen (1959) II LLJ. 666= AIR 1960 SC. 160 ; (20) Assam Oil Co. Ltd vs. Its Workmen, (1960) I LLJ 587- AIR 1960 SC 1264 : (21) Samnuggur Jute Factory Co. Ltd vs. Their Workmen, (1964) I LLJ. 634 (SC) (22) Dommur Dullang Tea Estate vs. The Workmen, C. A. No. 516 of 1966 decided by the Supreme Court on 26.10. 1967 : (23) Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. P. P. Chopra, (1970) I LLJ 63(SC)- (1969)3 SCC 653 ; (24) Hindustan Steel Limited vs. A. K. Roy : AIR 1970 SC 1401 ; (25) Management of Panitola Tea Estate vs. Its Workmen (1971) 1 LLJ. 233 -4IR 1971 SC 2171; (26) Francis Klein and Company Limited vs. Their Workmen, (1971)11 LLJ 615; (27) AIR 1971 SC 2414 ; (27) Workmen of Assam Match Company Limited vs. Labour Court (1973)11 LLJ 279; (28) Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 422 -1980 Lab. I. C. 1292. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court and in the absence of any evidence before the Labour Court that it was impossible or wholly inequ­itable to direct reinstatement with full back wages the Labour Court was justified in making the award of reinstatement with full back wages. However, before us it has been contended that Dr. Saha has already reached the age of superannuation, accor­dingly, he can not be reinstated If Dr. Saha has in the mean­time reached the age of superannuation he must be given all back wages and the retrial benefits to which he is entitled. This is the award and the award never directed that Dr. Saha should be allowed to continue in the services even after he bad reached the age of superannuation. If, in fact, Dr. Saha has reached the age of superannuation the management shall pay full back wages and grant him all retrial benefits. This is the award. 11 There is but one aspect which we must make very clear on more than one occasion their Lordships have stated that where the services of the probationers are dispensed with during the period of probation and the Industrial court finds the termination as illegal it can award reinstatement with back wages. This is the award. 11 There is but one aspect which we must make very clear on more than one occasion their Lordships have stated that where the services of the probationers are dispensed with during the period of probation and the Industrial court finds the termination as illegal it can award reinstatement with back wages. However, the right and freedom of the employer to make up its mind as to whether the services of the probationer should be retained or dispensed with "on justifiable ground", at the expiry of the probationary period can not be taken away vide-The Management of Brooks Bond (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Y. K. Gautam, (1973) 11 LLJ 457- AIR 1973 SC 2634 . The Industrial court should not take away the legitimate right and freedom of the employer to make up its mind at the conclusion of the probationary period whether the probationer should be retained or his services should be dispensed with on justifiable ground after scanning the nature and quality of his work during the probationary period. In the instant case, the services of Shri Paul were terminated during the period of probation. By the impugned order the workman has been reinstated with full back wages. The workman is entitled to the reliefs. However, Shri Paul was appointed on 16.8.72 for a period of six months which was to expire on 15.2.73. However, his services were terminated on 31.12.72. As such, he bad to serve as a probationer for one month and 15 days more. After Shri Paul works for one month and 15 days the management shall surely have the right to determine his job adequacy and/or suitability. He may be allowed to continue is the post or his services may be con­firmed expressly or he may be expressly appointed as a perma­nent workman or his services may be dispensed with "on justifiable grounds" and on no other ground. 12. For the foregoing reasons we hold that there is no merit in the application and, accordingly, it is dismissed with cost of Rs. 500/-payable by the petitioner to the Union.