SHIVNARAYAN DHINGRA, J. ( 1 ) BY this writ petition petitioner has challenged the legality of. Award dated february 21, 2002 whereby the petitioner claimed that his termination from service was illegal/unjustifiable. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that workman claimed that he was in the employment of respondent No. 1 as a cook at a monthly salary of Rs. 750 from September 1989. He used to cook food for supply of two flights. A raiding party/catering Officers of British Airways, Air france, Saudi Airlines and Lufthansa conducted a surprise raid at the premises of respondent No. 1 on July 11, 1989 where the workman was packing food for flights. His statement was recorded by the raiding party and the airlines took action against respondent. However, respondent illegally terminated his services with effect from July 13, 1989. He also stated that he had been raising voice for the legitimate demands like less salary and other benefits prior to that date also. The management took stand that attendance record of the petitioner was not up to the mark. He was employed as COMMI-III. Termination of service of workman had nothing to do with the alleged raid. His termination was a discharge simpliciter. He was paid wages and benefits as per the rules. No charge sheet etc. was to be issued since no inquiry against misconduct was held. The workman was working on temporary capacity. He was dismissed as such. The management pleaded that the petitioner had, joined it on October 24, 1988. This date of joining was given by the workman as well in the initial statement of claim. But the petitioner later amended his statement of claim and stated that he joined in September 1989. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal after considering entire evidence led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the workman had joined services on October 24, 1988 and he was terminated on july 12, 1989. In between he absented himself for about 14 days. The workman in all had worked only for 221 days including Sundays and other holidays, therefore, the provisions of section 2 (oo) read with Section 25 (F) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not attracted. in the case of petitioner. In between he absented himself for about 14 days. The workman in all had worked only for 221 days including Sundays and other holidays, therefore, the provisions of section 2 (oo) read with Section 25 (F) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 were not attracted. in the case of petitioner. ( 4 ) THE order of the Tribunal has been challenged on the ground that the date of joining given by the petitioner had not been considered correctly and the Tribunal did not : appreciate that petitioner was a beneficiary of pf, EPF etc. The termination of the petitioner from services amounted to his dismissal from the services which was done without following principles of natural justice. ( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. ( 6 ) WORKMAN initially had filed a statement of claim in which he gave his date of appointment as October 24, 1988. However, workman amended the claim and made a claim that he was inducted into service from September, 1989. This claim was falsified from the documents placed before the Court by the management namely his application dated October 21, 1988 for the post of cook and appointment letter dated October 23, 1988 by which he was appointed. This shows the workman had deliberately made false statement before the Court by filing the amended claim, in appointment letter dated october 23, 1988 issued to the workman, it was provided that he would be initially on induction period for a period of three months from the date of the appointment. The induction period can be extended or curtailed at the sole discretion of the management and after successful completion of induction period, he shall be at probation for next three months. His services would be liable to be terminated any time without assigning any reason at either side during the period of induction or probation. He would be confirmed in writing after the completion of probation period and placed in a proper scale of pay. ( 7 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that he had completed probation period and had been confirmed by the management and placed in proper scale of pay. It is his own case that he was getting a consolidated sum of Rs. 750 on which he was inducted in the service. ( 7 ) IT is not the case of the petitioner that he had completed probation period and had been confirmed by the management and placed in proper scale of pay. It is his own case that he was getting a consolidated sum of Rs. 750 on which he was inducted in the service. It is also not the case of the workman he had been issued a letter of confirmation, therefore, the plea of the workman that he has become permanent employee is not tenable. The industrial Tribunal has rightly arrived at a conclusion that since workman had not completed 240 days during preceding 12 months, he could not (sic) claim violation of section 25-F of the Act. Moreover, the workman was on probation when his services were terminated simpliciter without alleging any misconduct. The management was within its right to do so. No legal right had accrued to the workman under Labour Laws. ( 8 ) THE workman miserably failed in proving that he had worked with the respondent no. 1 for 240 days during the preceding year, labour Court had rightly come to the conclusion that termination of the workman was not illegal and unjustified. ( 9 ) I find no merits in the writ petition. Writ petition is hereby dismissed.