( 1 ) IN this petition the petitioner has challenged the award passed by the Labour court directing reinstatement of the respondent in service and for granting all consequential benefits with 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement. ( 2 ) THE facts in brief, which gave rise to this petition, are as under: the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of watches and has head office at bangalore. The respondent was engaged as a technician trainee in the petitioner's organisation on December 27, 1976 as per annexures A and B the order of appointment. The training was for a period of two years. On april 4, 1978, he was served with a charge sheet alleging misconduct of theft and dishonesty in connection with the company's property. The respondent gave reply denying those charges. Not being satisfied with the said reply an enquiry was initiated. In the enquiry he was found guilty. On the basis of the said report the disciplinary authority terminated the services of the respondent with effect from June 18, 1978. The respondent raised an industrial dispute. Conciliation failed. The dispute was referred to the Additional Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal after the enquiry set aside the order of termination directing the petitioner to take back the respondent into service on the same terms and conditions till he completes the balance training period. The respondent being aggrieved by that portion of the award where he was denied back wages preferred W. P. No. 526/1986. The High Court rejected the writ petition upholding the award of the Tribunal. The appeal preferred against the said order of the learned single Judge was also dismissed. The respondent approached the supreme Court. A direction was issued to the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for the period when he was terminated. It is thereafter the respondent was taken back to duty. On his completion of two years training period, on August 6, 1986 he was relieved with effect from August 7, 1986. Aggrieved by the said order of termination the respondent raised in industrial dispute, again conciliation having failed it referred the matter to the Labour Court, Bangalore. The same was registered as Ref. No. 95/1990. On his completion of two years training period, on August 6, 1986 he was relieved with effect from August 7, 1986. Aggrieved by the said order of termination the respondent raised in industrial dispute, again conciliation having failed it referred the matter to the Labour Court, Bangalore. The same was registered as Ref. No. 95/1990. The respondent filed a claim petition contending that he was appointed as technician trainee in the HMT watch Factory, Bangalore and was posted for training on a consolidated pay of Rs. 350/ per month for a period of two years, he has completed the period of training, there is reciprocal promise made by the petitioner in the appointment order as trainee that he would be appointed on regular basis on successful completion of training, refusal to retain the respondent after completion of training period as untenable, it amounts to non-employment or denying employment, therefore he wanted the relief of reinstatement, back wages and other consequential reliefs. The said claim was contested by the petitioner by filing a counter. It is contended that he was appointed as a trainee for a period of two years after completion of two years period his service came to be dispensed with, therefore it is not a case of termination or retrenchment as contended by the respondent. There is no privity of contract between the parties to absorb the respondent in the company of the petitioner. The said question has already been finally settled in the earlier proceedings between the parties which went up to Apex court and therefore, he has no right to re-agitate the matter. On the aforesaid pleadings the respondent examined two witnesses and marked seven documents. Petitioner examined one witness and they have marked five documents. The Labour Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that in the letter of termination petitioner has not given any reason as to why the services of the respondent are not considered for appointment. Persons who are taken as trainees along with the respondent are confirmed in service and they are given promotions also but the terms of the appointment order reveal that on successful completion of the training they were required to work for a minimum period of three years. No materials have been placed before the Court to show that the respondent has not successfully completed the training period. No materials have been placed before the Court to show that the respondent has not successfully completed the training period. There is no whisper made by the management about any misconduct while relieving the respondent immediately after the training period, even though the evidence on record shows that he was removed from his work as his work was not satisfactory. The same has not been proved during the course of enquiry. No notice/communication was issued to the respondent in this regard and no material is placed before the Court to show that he was not suitable Cor the post and merely because of the fact that the training was not satisfactory, the services of the respondent could not have been dispensed with, it is an arbitrary action and on such arbitrary ground the employment cannot be denied to the respondent. Therefore, he proceeded to hold that the petitioner was not justified in dismissing the service of the respondent with effect from August 7, 1986 and that he is entitled to be absorbed in the services of the petitioner as per the terms of the agreement exhibit M1. Therefore, he directed absorption in the service after setting aside the order of termination granting all consequential benefits with 50% back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement by award dated July 26, 1999. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned award contends that when the services of the respondent came to be dispensed with after the expiry of the period of training, no fault would be found with the action of the petitioner. Consequently, it was contended that there was an agreement between the parties where if the petitioner wanted, the respondent was bound to serve the petitioner for a period of three years, that does not confer any right on the respondent to insist that he should be absorbed in service. Lastly, it was contended that when the order of termination only states that with the expiry of the training period his service is dispensed with, that question of petitioner proving the unsuitability of the respondent in service as held by the labour Court would not arise. Lastly, it was contended that when the order of termination only states that with the expiry of the training period his service is dispensed with, that question of petitioner proving the unsuitability of the respondent in service as held by the labour Court would not arise. In these circumstances, she submits that the Labour court committed a serious error in creating contract of service by directing absorption and granting other reliefs which it has granted. ( 4 ) PER contra, Sri M. C. Narasimhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contents that the services of the respondent are dispensed with after the expiry of two years period agreed upon, when there was a contract between the parties that on his successful completion of the training period, the respondent is required to serve the petitioner for a period of three years, certainly the respondent has a right to insist that he should be continued in service. Trainees who were similarly placed as that of the respondent have been confirmed in service by the petitioner and therefore the respondent has been discriminated in this regard. The ground pleaded which is alleged against the respondent earlier was found to be without basis and on that ground his service could not have been terminated. When the Labour Court after considering all the relevant materials and after holding that the respondent has successfully completed his two years of service is entitled to be provided employment to the petitioner, it cannot be said that it is unreasonable or perverse which calls for interference in this court. Therefore, he submits that there is no substance in the writ petition. ( 5 ) THE undisputed facts in this case as available from the material on record shows that the respondent was selected and appointed as technician trainee in terms of annexure-A dated December 13, 1976, the terms and conditions stipulated therein shows that the respondent had to undergo training anywhere in India for a period of two years, which may be reduced or extended depending upon the progress of his training. After training and probationary period, his services can be terminated with one month's notice in writing or one month's wages in lieu of notice on either side subject to the provisions of the agreement. Along with the said appointment order the parties have entered into an agreement for technician trainee. After training and probationary period, his services can be terminated with one month's notice in writing or one month's wages in lieu of notice on either side subject to the provisions of the agreement. Along with the said appointment order the parties have entered into an agreement for technician trainee. Clause (6) of the agreement which is relevant states that the conditions of appointment to the training with the company as contained in the letter of appointment issued by the company, save as expressly modified in this agreement, shall remain unaffected and shall continue to be binding on the trainee and his surety. Clause 1. 1 of the said agreement provides that the trainee has agreed to serve the company for a period of three years excluding the period of appointment as well as a further training period, in a higher category, unauthorised leave, leave without allowance and study leave, if any. The services of the respondent came to be terminated before the expiry of two years period on the ground of misconduct of theft which was the subject matter of proceedings in which the respondent was exonerated. The Tribunal while holding him not guilty, made it clear that he would be entitled to be continued as a trainee for the balance period, which order has become final. Therefore, he was continued for the remaining period of training. After the expiry of two years period of training, he has been served with an order dated August 6, 1986, which reads as under:"as per the letters under reference, your training period expires on August 6, 1986 (after working hours) and you cease to be a trainee w. e. f. August 7, 1986 at HMT Watch Factory I and I, bangalore-560 031. Accordingly, you will stand relieved from your training w. e. f. August 6, 1986 (after working hours ). Enclosed please find herewith two cheques bearing Nos. AP/129-365651 and ap/ 19-36562 dated July 23, 1986, for a total sum of Rs. 1,600/- (one month's stipend amount in lieu of notice - Rs. 800/-, and an amount equivalent to 15 days stipend for each year of completed training - Rs. 800/-), drawn on United Commercial Bank, bangalore City. " ( 6 ) IT is this order, which is challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court. 1,600/- (one month's stipend amount in lieu of notice - Rs. 800/-, and an amount equivalent to 15 days stipend for each year of completed training - Rs. 800/-), drawn on United Commercial Bank, bangalore City. " ( 6 ) IT is this order, which is challenged by the respondent before the Labour Court. Now, the question for consideration is whether the termination of the respondents service in terms of the letter dated August 6, 1986 is illegal, contrary to law and it requires to be interfered with. The Labour Court has set aside the said order on three grounds. Firstly, on the ground that because of the terms of the agreement where he was under obligation to work with the petitioner for three years, he has a right to be absorbed in service. Secondly, he proceeds that the services came to be terminated as being unsatisfactory for which there was no proof. Thirdly on the ground that the trainees who were similarly placed as that of the respondent have been confirmed in service and some of them have been promoted. It is for these reasons the Labour Court was of the view mat the impugned appointment is bad and the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for. ( 7 ) THE letter of appointment and the agreement entered into between the parties is very clear. The respondent has no right to continue as a trainee after the expiry of the period of two years. The agreement provides in the event of the petitioner wanting the respondent's service he is bound to serve the petitioner, otherwise he has to pay compensation. Similarly no corresponding right is conferred under the agreement on the respondent to insist that he should be taken on duty. Therefore, the Labour Court committed serious error in reading that agreement as conferring the right on the respondent on being continued in service after the expiry of the training period. ( 8 ) NOWHERE in the letter dated August 6, 1986 it is mentioned that his services are no more required as his services was unsatisfactory. Absolutely no stigma is attached to the respondent in the letter dated august 6, 1986. ( 8 ) NOWHERE in the letter dated August 6, 1986 it is mentioned that his services are no more required as his services was unsatisfactory. Absolutely no stigma is attached to the respondent in the letter dated august 6, 1986. All that it says is his training period expires on August 6, 1986 and he ceases to be a trainee with effect from August 7, 1986 and accordingly he is relieved from training with effect from August 6, 1986 after working hours. As the letter of appointment stipulates notice period if such a notice was not given, in lieu of such notice he was entitled to one month's stipend, the same has been given as stipulated in the letter of appointment. It is in the course of evidence in cross-examination of the workman it was shown that his services were not continued because of his unsuitability. That is how both the parties proceed on the assumption that unsuitability is the cause for his non-continuation in service and evidence was adduced by both the parties substantiating their respective contentions, that is how the Labour court misled itself into the question whether there was any material to show that the respondent was unsuitable and the petitioner was justified in not continuing the services of the respondent. The entire discussion is totally unwarranted on the facts of this case, when in the order of termination there is no mention anything about the unsuitability. ( 9 ) THE third reason given by the Labour court is that persons who are similarly placed have been confirmed in service and some of them have been promoted. That by itself would not confer any right on the respondent. His rights have to be worked out under the terms of the appointment order and the agreement entered into between the parties from which rights flow. The petitioners have chosen to provide employment to persons who are similarly placed and they have not chosen to extend the same benefit to the respondent which is fully within their discretion. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances, no basis of arbitrariness is made out as contended by the respondent. The petitioners have chosen to provide employment to persons who are similarly placed and they have not chosen to extend the same benefit to the respondent which is fully within their discretion. ( 10 ) IN the circumstances, no basis of arbitrariness is made out as contended by the respondent. In fact, even as wrongly construed, the respondent is held to be a workman, the amended definition of sub clause (bb) of clause (oo) of Section 2 makes it clear that the termination of services of the workman after the expiry of the period agreed upon, or of such appointment being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein, would not amount to retrenchment. In the circumstances seen from any angle, the termination of the respondent from service in terms of the order dated August 6, 1986 which is marked in the case as exhibit M. 5 cannot be said to be illegal, contrary to law and requires to be interfered with. The Labour Court committed serious error in misconstruing the letter dated August 6, 1986, and embarking upon an enquiry which is totally unwarranted and also misconstrued the terms of the appointment order and the agreement entered into between the parties and in passing the impugned award. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It requires to be set aside. Hence, I pass the following order: the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award of the Labour Court is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .