A. V. SRINIVASA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant-corporation has presented this appeal feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single Judge reinstating the dismissed workman with back wages. ( 2 ) THE facts leading to this appeal, briefly stated, are as under: the respondent-workman was appointed as badli conductor on November 15, 1972 and later as conductor on June 6, 1973 on probation for a period of two years. Before expiry of the probationary period, his services were terminated on January 24, 1975 holding that the workman was unsuitable for the post. No enquiry was conducted prior to his termination. The appeal and revision filed by the workman, subsequently, did not yield any result. An industrial dispute was raised by the workman under the Industrial Disputes Act but the government refused to refer the dispute. After coming into force of Section 10 (4-A) of the act, the workman filed an application challenging the dismissal. The application was contested by the management contending that there was no suitable job for the workman and his termination was purely on account of his non-suitability to hold the post and there was no mala fides or motives involved in his termination. The Labour Court allowed the application filed by the workman before it and ordered reinstatement with back wages from june 17, 1988 and other consequential benefits. The Corporation being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court preferred the Writ Petition before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge taking the view that the corporation ought to have held an enquiry before terminating the workman, upheld the award of the Labour Court in toto. Aggrieved, the corporation has preferred the present appeal. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned counsel on both sides. ( 4 ) THE service conditions of the workman are governed by the Karnataka State Road transport Corporation (Cadre and recruitment) Regulations, 1982. Sub-clause (3) of Section 11 of the Regulations governs cases of termination before the completion of the period of probation. It reads:"if the candidate appointed on probation is not found suitable for the post, his services may at the discretion of the Appointing authority, be terminated at any time within the period of probation. In case of an employee of the Corporation, who is appointed on probation on. It reads:"if the candidate appointed on probation is not found suitable for the post, his services may at the discretion of the Appointing authority, be terminated at any time within the period of probation. In case of an employee of the Corporation, who is appointed on probation on. selection such termination shall mean reversion to the post held by him regularly prior to such appointment. " (emphasis supplied) the Regulation in terms speaks of the right of the Corporation to terminate an employee of the corporation purely at its discretion without resort to any enquiry. The rights that accrue to a workman appointed under probation, under the Regulations, would always be subject to this right of the Corporation to terminate his services at its discretion if it was found that the workman was not suitable to hold the post. The regulation aims at providing the Corporation the right to ensure for itself that a workman is suitable to be absorbed as permanent employee and this right that accrues to it is unqualified one, bereft of any conditions that the Corporation has to fulfil before it can terminate a permanent employee. Probably it is to aid the corporation to remove from its rank workmen who are mere dead wood and who cannot contribute in any way in the working of the corporation. The Corporation acting on the powers so reserved to it under the Regulations has terminated the workman purely on account of his unsuitability to hold the post. The Government has also rightly rejected the industrial dispute reference made to it by the workman. While no fault could be found with the Labour court in proceeding under Section 10 (4-A) of the Act, there was absolutely no justification for the passing of the award which amounts to thrusting on the Corporation a workman who cannot serve the Corporation in any way and would only be a burden on it. ( 5 ) THE view taken by the learned single judge that the termination of the workman should have been preceded by an enquiry runs contrary to Regulation 11 (3) of the Act which governs the service conditions of the employee and, therefore, as without the authority of law. The privilege that the statute has bestowed on the Corporation cannot be taken away by an order of the Court. The privilege that the statute has bestowed on the Corporation cannot be taken away by an order of the Court. The order of the learned single Judge not only takes away the privilege that the Corporation enjoys in the light of the statutory provision but it also invests in the workman a right that had been denied to him under the statute. The legal effect of such an order is that it amounts to legislating under the guise of interpretation which is impermissible in law. ( 6 ) IN Oswal Pressure Die Casting Industry v. Presiding Officer AIR 1998 SC 1431 : 1998 (3) SCC 225 : 1998-I-LLJ-1074 while dealing with the question whether a probationer could be terminated without holding an enquiry, the apex Court elucidated the legal position as under at p. 1076 of LLJ :"once it was found that the Assessment made by the employer was supported by some material and was not mala fide it was not proper for the High Court to interfere and substitute its satisfaction with the satisfaction of the employer. The High court was also wrong in holding that in order to ensure its satisfaction it was necessary for the appellant to produce some reports or communication or other, evidence to show that performance of the respondent was below the expected norms. We find that the whole approach of the High court was wrong and, therefore, the order passed by it will have to be set aside. "the above enunciation of the Apex Court leaves nothing to doubt that Courts should shun (sic) away from insisting on proof of the unsuitability of the workman to do a particular job, when the employer having had the opportunity to weigh his performance individually and in comparison with others of the same ilk had formed an opinion in that regard. No employer would desire to do away with the services of an employee if he was satisfied with his performance. Therefore, the order passed by the learned single Judge upholding the award of the Labour Court cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, this writ appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The order passed by the learned single Judge and the award of the labour Court are set aside. --- *** --- .