( 1 ) THE respondent on 1/2/1983 was employed as a clerk by the appellant bank on probation for six months. The said period was extendable by a further period of six months. On the expiry of the first period of six months, the appellants, after 27 days later sent an intimation to the respondent extending his period of probation by six months. During the coursethereof, the appellant sent a weeks notice to the respondent under the Standing orders discharging him from service. The respondent raised a dispute before the labour court. The Labour court held that the respondent was a probationer; that the notice terminating his service was not proper under the Standing orders. Cross appeals were filed by the parties before the Industrial tribunal, which took the view that since probation of the respondent was not extended before the expiry of six months, then he had become a permanent employee, but the notice of termination of service sent to him was otherwise valid and the date of receipt has been tampered by the respondent. The High court dismissed the appellants writ petition in limine on the ground that Under Clause 3- a of the Standing Orders, a probationer becomes permanent on completion of six months of service. ( 2 ) THE views differently expressed from stage to stage by the Labour court on the original side, the Industrial tribunal at the appellate stage and the High court in exercise of writ jurisdiction are at variance. But for the view we are taking in disposing of this matter, it would not be necessary to comment on such views. It has been found, that a weeks notice sent to the respondent was valid and the respondent had committed forgery in making it appear as if it had reached him not on the date of its issue, but six days later by giving a wrong date of its receipt, as if he had received only three days notice before discharge. ( 3 ) BY the orders of the Industrial tribunal, as affirmed by the High court, the appellant-bank was required to take the respondent back in service with back wages. It appears that while granting special leave to appellant, this court granted stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and order of the High court but later conditioned it on the payment of Rs. 10,000. It appears that while granting special leave to appellant, this court granted stay of the operation of the impugned judgment and order of the High court but later conditioned it on the payment of Rs. 10,000. 00 to the respondent in addition to what it had already been paid in the High court. The payment was subject to the final result of the case. Admittedly a sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 had already been paid to the respondent. ( 4 ) THIS appeal was scheduled to be fixed before the Lok Adalat, to be held in the precincts of the Supreme court and the respondent gave his written consent for a settlement out of court. The appellant, however, was set to have a decision on merits. So the matter has been brought now on board. We have heard from the learned counsel for the parties and have elicited their view with regard to a just settlement in order to close the matter. Having taken them in view, we are inclined to give another sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 over and above the sum of Rs. 15,000. 00, already paid to him towards full and final settlement of the claims of the, respondent against the appellant-bank. We order accordingly that the payment be made within a period of two months. For the purposes of income-tax, this amount shall not be taxable as it is spread out in the preceding 61/2 years. On disposing of this appeal in this manner, the orders of the High court and the Industrial tribunal and of the labour court are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.