Honble VERMA, J.–Rajendra Pal Kukar respondent workman in the present case was initially appointed with effect from 25.8.1981 as Junior Engineer for one month and later on vide order dated 26.10.1981 he was awarded the regular pay scale of Junior Engineer under the Rajasthan Service Rules and he continued to work in the job. There was nothing adverse against him. He was removed from service on 25.4.1985 without any cause, it is so alleged by the workman. It is stated that his work had time and again been commended during this period. The workman was interviewed on 6.7.1984 and was selected for the same post and was allowed to continue and appointed vide letter dated 1.8.1984 on the post of Junior Engineer on certain conditions which the workman did not agree for the reason that he was in continuous service from 1981 and, therefore, there was hardly any necessity to put any conditions on him by issuing a fresh appointment order. He had fallen ill and was under treatment from 5.2.1985 to 14.4.1985 in the Government Hospital for which period he had applied due leave. His services were terminated vide letter dated 16.3.1985 in violation of the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 (referred to hereinafter as ``the Act of 1947). It was stated by the workman that he had regularly worked without any break from 25.8.1981 to 16.3.1985 and, therefore, the termination of his services was bad. The matter was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court, Bikaner. (2). The petitioner, respondent before the Labour Court, had admitted that the workman was employed on 25.8.1981 initially for one month and later on his term was extended from time to time. Regular vacancies were advertised and the workman had also applied for the same and, therefore, he was again employed for six months on probation, even though he was already in service. It was stated that on having been re-selected on 17.4.1984 the workman was employed @ Rs. 1050/- and not in scale 420-830 in the year 1981. It was further stated in the reply that the probation period was further extended for three months and his services were terminated as he was not found fit to be retained in service. A plea was taken that the services of the workman were terminated because of non-satisfactory work during the period of probation. (3). It was further stated in the reply that the probation period was further extended for three months and his services were terminated as he was not found fit to be retained in service. A plea was taken that the services of the workman were terminated because of non-satisfactory work during the period of probation. (3). After going through the pleadings and the evidence produced by the parties, the Labour Court vide a well reasoned judgment Annex. 7 dated 24.2.1995 had come to the conclusion that the workman had worked right from 25.8.1981 till the date of termination. It had also been found that the workman was selected by way of regular selection also and even his pay was fixed by taking into account his previous service. It was found by the Labour Court that as a matter of fact, the Management wanted the workman to agree to certain other service conditions after his re-selection in the year 1984 and the workman had objected for putting certain conditions of service on him which were not in accordance with the rules and vide Ex.8 he had refused to give his consent to such conditions and asked for certain other clarifications before agreeing into such conditions put on the workman and it was also found by the Labour Court that the appointment made in the eyar 1984 cannot be said to be a fresh appointment because he was in continuous service right from August, 1981 and even if his previous service was counted while giving fresh appointment. It was further found by the Labour Court that the services of the workman had been terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F(B) of the Act of 1947 which was rather an admitted fact and thus, the termination of the services of the respondent workman was held to be bad and he was ordered to be reinstated with full benefits. (4). The above-said award has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that even though the petitioner continued in the job from 1981 but he was again selected for a regular post in the year 1984 and was appointed on probation. (4). The above-said award has been challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition on the ground that even though the petitioner continued in the job from 1981 but he was again selected for a regular post in the year 1984 and was appointed on probation. It is stated that the workman himself had applied vide his application Annex.1 for regular joband he was given the appointment on 1.8.1984, a copy of which is attached as Annex.2 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the period of probation for the workman shall be of six months which period of probation had come to an end on 8.1.1985 and was extended for a period of 3 months and ultimately on 16.3.1985 vide Annex.6 his services were terminated on account of unsatisfactory work. (5). From the above narrated facts, it is revealed that the workman was appointed initially on 25.8.1981 and continued to work regularly when the petitioner had invited application for regular appointment. The petitioner did apply in response to such advertisement vide his application Annex.1 and in the application itself the respondent workman had stated that he is already working with the petitioner since 1981. He is selected and put on probation even though his previous services are taken into account and his pay is also fixed in accordance with that. The respondent objected to certain conditions of service put on the fresh appointment. Even during the period of probation he completed 240 days but he has been removed from service without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. The Labour Court found that he had been working since August, 1981 and, therefore, his services are to be considered as continuous. There is no illegality committed by the Labour Court in this regard. It is unimaginable that a Junior Engineer, respondent workman, who had worked for more than 3 years is being put on probation for six months on the pretext that he has now again been selected by way of regular selection. In Industrial Law this type of practice is called `unfair labour practice and comes under the definition of victimisation for giving repeated appointment letters and allow to continue for years together and when there is nothing against the workman, the employer all of a sudden puts the workman on probation, it cannot be termed as a fair practice. In Industrial Law this type of practice is called `unfair labour practice and comes under the definition of victimisation for giving repeated appointment letters and allow to continue for years together and when there is nothing against the workman, the employer all of a sudden puts the workman on probation, it cannot be termed as a fair practice. There is a difference between protection to be awarded to the industrial worker under the Act of 1947 and the protection given to the civil service employees. The Labour Court had acted legally in coming to the finding that the order of termination of the services of the workman was not legal. (6). Even though no such question arises on the facts of the present case, that non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 during the period of probation shall not render the order of termination as illegal but still the counsel for the peti- tioner has argued that taking the employment from the date of fresh appointment when he had already in service i.e. from 1.8.1984 he is said to be on probation and even though he has completed 240 days during this so-called probation period, there was no necessity of complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947. (7). In Management of Karnataka State Raod Transport Corporation, Bangalore vs. M. Boraiah and another (1) the Honble Supreme Court held as under :- ``As retrenchment as defined in Section 2(oo) covers every case of termination of service except those which have been embodied in the definition, discharge from employment or termination of service of probationer would also amount to retrenchment. As such, where while discharging a probationer requirements of Section 25-F had not been complied with the same was void. (8). Similarly, in Syed Azam Hussan vs. Andhra Bank Ltd. (2), it was held by the Supreme Court that the termination of the services before the expiry of the ex- tended period of probation without showing any reasonable cause amounted to retrenchment and non-payment of retrenchment compensation had rendered the order of termination to be bad. (9). In view of the authoritative law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner has no force and is to be rejected. (9). In view of the authoritative law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, the contention of the counsel for the petitioner has no force and is to be rejected. It is mandatory for the management to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act of 1947 in case of probationer whose services are required to be terminated and who had worked for more than 240 days as per law. It is also mandatory for the employer to give proper opportunity to the workman if the termination is to be sought before the expiry of the period of probation or before the expiry of the extended period of probation. But in the case in hand the workman was continued and was continuing in service right from August 1981 and termination of the services by treating him on probation because of the reason that during the period of probation he was termed as probationer, could not be held to be justified and in accordance with law. (10). The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore vs. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar and another (3) and State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Rameshwar Lal Gahlot (4) on the proposition that the services of the probation can be terminated if their service conduct is not satisfactory. There is no dispute to such a proposition. However, before terminating the services of a probationer if the probationer is entitled to any relief under the law as enunciated by the Apex Court and such provisions of law not have been complied with, the order of termination even during the period of probation cannot be held to be valid. The facts in the above said authorities quoted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are distinguishable and not relevant to the point involved in the present case. (11). For the reasons and discussion above, the writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. The order of the Labour Court is sustained. No costs.