Judgment ( 1. ) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of impugned order Annexure-P/1 dated 15/3/2001 passed by the Industrial Court of M. P. Bench at Jabalpur dismissing the appeal of the petitioners and affirming the order passed by Labour Court, Sagar Annexure-P/2 dated 27/11/2000 in Case No. 22/m. P. I. R. /94 whereby respondent No. 1 has been directed to be reinstated without back wages. ( 2. ) NO exhaustive statement of facts are necessary for the disposal of this petition Suffice it to state that respondent No. l was an employee under the employment of the petitioners and he was a probationer. Vide order dated 15/4/1994 (Annexure-P/4) his services were terminated by the petitioners. Eventually, the employee filed an application under Sections 31 (2), 61 end 62 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (in short the Act) before the Labour Court, Sagar for his reinstatement and also award of full back wages. ( 3. ) THE case of the employee before the Labour Court in his application under the Act is that he was appointed on the post of Assistant Grade II w. e. f 8/9/1989 and his services were terminated on 15/4/1994. The contention of employee before the Labour Court was that on account of misconduct as he remained absent from the duty, his services were terminated by the petitioners vide order dated 15th April, 1994 (Annexure-P/4 ). According to employee, the termination order is stigmatic in nature and if that is the position, the employer was bound to hold a departmental enquiry as per the provisions of Standard Standing Orders (for brevity sso) framed, under M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1963. ( 4. ) THE averments made in the application by the employee were refuted by the employer by filing a written statement and the stand of the employer is that since the employee was appointed for two years on probation basis and his work was not found to be satisfactory and he committed misconduct for which he was also communicated adverse ACR, therefore, the probation period was not extended and hence the action of the employer cannot be said to be arbitrary in nature and the employee is not entitled for reinstatement. ( 5. ) THE Labour Court, after framing necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties. ( 5. ) THE Labour Court, after framing necessary issues, recorded the evidence of the parties. . The Labour Court, after marshaling and appreciating the evidence, came to hold that the absence of employee for two days amounts minor misconduct and, therefore, passed the order of reinstatement without back wages. ( 6. ) THE petitioner assailed the order of Labour Court by filing appeal under Section 65 of the Act before the Industrial Court. The employee also filed an appeal against that part of the order of the Labour Court (Annexure-P/2) by which the Labour Court did not allow the back wages to him. The Industrial Court heard both the appeals together and by a common order dated 15/3/2001; dismissed both the appeals by the impugned order. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioners. ( 7. ) AS per the contention of Shri Rajneesh Gupta, learned Counsel for employee (respondent No. 1) he did not file any petition against the order of Labour Court and Industrial Court disallowing back wages to the employee. ( 8. ) IT has been contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the two Courts below erred in substantial error of law in allowing the application filed by the employee in part and thereby directing to reinstate him without back wages. The contention of learned senior counsel is that since the employee was a probationer, therefore, on account of his unsatisfactory work, his probation period was not extended and as such the action of the employer cannot be said to be arbitrary in nature and if that is the position, the two Court below erred in law while directing reinstatement of the employee. ( 9. ) PER contra, Shri. Rajneesh Gupta, learned Counsel for employee, argued in support of the impugned order. ( 10. ) AFTER having heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 11. ) IF the termination order of employee dated 15th April, 1994 Annexure-P/4) is considered in proper perspective, it is gathered that on account of misconduct, his services were terminated. Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was conducted against him on account of misconduct. Before the Labour Court the stand of the employer was that he remained absent from the duty. The. Labour. ) IF the termination order of employee dated 15th April, 1994 Annexure-P/4) is considered in proper perspective, it is gathered that on account of misconduct, his services were terminated. Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was conducted against him on account of misconduct. Before the Labour Court the stand of the employer was that he remained absent from the duty. The. Labour. Court in its order Annexure-P/2 dated 27/11/2000 while deciding Issue No. 4 came to hold that the misconduct which the employer has proved is only to the extent that the employee remained absent for two days from service and since it does not amount to major misconduct as contemplated under Clause 12 (1) (p) of SSO, therefore, it is a minor misconduct. Under SSO minor misconduct has also been enumerated. Under Clause 12 (2) (b), if an employee remain absent from his duty without leave or without sufficient cause which is not a major misconduct, is a minor misconduct. Under Clause 12 (1) (p), if an employee remain absent unauthorisedly for more than 10 consecutive days then only amounts to major misconduct. Since there is a pure finding of fact recorded by two Courts below that the employee remained absent unauthorizedly for two days, therefore, as per Cause 2 (2) (b) of SSO, it amounts minor misconduct, Hence the Labour Court and Industrial Court rightly quashed the termination order Annexure-P/4 dated 15th April, 1994 passed by the petitioners terminating the services of the employee (respondent No. 1 ). ( 12. ) I have given my anxious and bestowed consideration to the reasoning assigned by the two Courts below and I find them to be quite, cogent and in consonance of the law. Since the findings arrived at by the two Courts below are pure findings of facts, therefore, while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 225 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the same are not allowed to be interfered unless they are perverse. Learned Counsel for the petitioners could not point out any perversity in the impugned order. The two Courts below rightly passed the order of reinstatement id favour of the employee (respondent No. 1) without back wages. ( 13. ) THIS petition is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.