ORDER A.K. Pathak, J. 1. Respondent no. 2-workman was appointed as a 'Stenographer' by the petitioner-management on 19th May, 1995 in the pay grade of Rs. 1600-175-3700/-. In terms of Clause 4 of letter of appointed (Ex. MW1/1) he was to remain on probation for period of 6 month from the date of joining his duties. During this probation period, his services were liable to be terminated at time. Upon successful completion of probation period his services were to be confirmed in writing. Clause 7 of the appointment letter further envisaged that after confirmation management could have terminated the service of workman at any time by giving him one month notice or salary in lieu thereof. Workman was also given right to leave the service of management by giving month's notice or surrendering salary in lieu thereof. Services of workman were terminated on 18th October, 1996 vide letter of termination Ex. MW1/3 which reads as under:- In view of your gross misbehavior with your Departmental Head & threatening him for the dire consequences for reasons best known to you, you are hereby terminated from your services with immediate effect. 2. Workman challenged his termination being illegal and Secretary (Labour), Govt. of NCT of Delhi referred the industrial dispute to Labour Court, Delhi for adjudication in the following terms:- Whether service of Shri Sivan Kutty N.K. have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the Management, if so, what relief is the entitled and what directions necessary in this respect 3. Upon scrutiny of evidence adduced by the parties, Industrial Adjudicator has held that termination of workman was not termination simpliciter on account of his unsatisfactory performance. His termination was punitive in nature for the misconduct alleged in the termination letter. In fact, misconduct alleged was the foundation of his termination. Misconduct was not the motive for termination of the workman. Termination was, thus, held punitive in nature. Since workman was terminated without issuing any show cause notice and holding an enquiry it was held bad in law. Reliance was placed on Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and others 2002 (92) FLA 1087 (SC), wherein it was held that probationer has no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during or at end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post in question. Reliance was placed on Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and others 2002 (92) FLA 1087 (SC), wherein it was held that probationer has no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during or at end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post in question. If for the his further retention in service or for, confirmation, an enquiry is held and it is on the basis of that enquiry that a decision is taken to terminate his services, the order will not be punitive in nature. But, if there are allegations of misconduct and order was enquiry is held to find out the truth of that misconduct and an order was passed for terminating his service on the basis of that enquiry, the order would be punitive in nature as enquiry was held not for assessing the general suitability of the employee for the post in question, but to find out the truth of allegation of misconduct against that employee. In this situation, the order would be found on misconduct, and it will not be a mere matter of 'motive'. In was further held that 'motive' is the moving power which impels action for a definite result or to put it differently, 'motive' is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act. An order terminating his service is an act done by his employee which impelled the employee to take this action. If it was the factor of general unsuitability of an employee for post held by him, the action would be upheld in law. If there were allegations of serious misconduct against the employee and a preliminary enquiry is held behind his back to ascertain the truth of those allegations and a termination order is passed thereafter, the order, having regard to other circumstances, would be found on the allegations of misconduct which were found to be true in the preliminary enquiry. 4. Industrial Adjudicator has noted that Sh. A.K. Saxena, MW-1 had deposed that on 12th October, 1996 workman scuffed with him in presence of office employees, inasmuch as, extended threats to the head of the department if his medical bills were not settled. Workman was issued memo dated 9th October, 1996 (Ex. MW1/2) of his alleged threatening and misbehavior with head of the department during office hours. A.K. Saxena, MW-1 had deposed that on 12th October, 1996 workman scuffed with him in presence of office employees, inasmuch as, extended threats to the head of the department if his medical bills were not settled. Workman was issued memo dated 9th October, 1996 (Ex. MW1/2) of his alleged threatening and misbehavior with head of the department during office hours. It has been further noted that termination simpliciter on account of non confirmation of the workman due to his unsatisfactory performance but, in fact, was for the misconduct alleged against him, thus, was punitive in nature. 5. Findings of facts recorded by the Industrial Adjudicator, upon appreciation of evidence, cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution by appreciating the evidence. This Court has to only see to whether award suffers from manifest error of law or jurisdiction or is based on no evidence. If award is based on some evidence it cannot be interfered with. 6. This Court can interfere with the award if the same is based on no evidence. In the backdrop of above settled legal principles, if award is scrutinized, I do not find the same to be based on no evidence. Industrial Adjudicator has securitized and discussed the evidence adduced by the parties threadbare for concluding that termination was on account of misconduct and since it was done without holding any enquiry the same was bad in law. Accordingly, I do not find justification to interfere with the Award. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Management of M/s. Mahavir Senior Model School Delhi Vs. Ram Surat Mishra 2007 (4) SLR 494 and B.S. Chopra Vs. Management of Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited and Anr. 2006 (87) DRJ 76 (DB). I have perused the judgment and find the same to be in the context of different facts. In both the cases, termination order simpliciter during the probation period in terms of the appointment letter. In B.S. Chopra (Supra), perusal of termination letter indicates that services of workman were terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance. In Ram Surat Mishra (Supra), termination was simpliciter in nature. In both the cases, termination order simpliciter during the probation period in terms of the appointment letter. In B.S. Chopra (Supra), perusal of termination letter indicates that services of workman were terminated on account of unsatisfactory performance. In Ram Surat Mishra (Supra), termination was simpliciter in nature. In the said case, in the correspondence exchanged between the management and Director of Education it was mentioned that workman had misbehaved with the staff and students and staff by rash driving, inasmuch as, was negligent towards performance of his duties. However, the allegations were not part of the termination letter and in this context, it was held that such behavior of workman may be 'motive' but not the 'foundation' of termination. In the present case, allegations of misbehavior have been mentioned is the termination letter itself, as ground for termination, thus, misconduct is the 'foundation' of termination, as has been rightly held by the Industrial Adjudicator. Since, termination is on the ground of misconduct and punitive in nature it is bad in law having been done without complying the principles of natural justice. 8. The next question which needs consideration is that to what relief would be appropriate for workman. Industrial Adjudicator has awarded full back wages to the workman in lieu of his reinstatement. It is trite law that reinstatement is not and automatic relief wherever termination is held illegal. Accordingly, I do not find anything wrong with the approach of Industrial Adjudicator in awarding full back wages in line of reinstatement. However, in this case, workman had worked hardly for one year and his services were terminated about 14 years ago, thus, in my view, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs would meet ends of justice. Accordingly, impugned Award is modified to the extent that petitioner shall be entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2 lacs (Rupees Two Lacs Only) in lieu of full back wages. Workman has already received Rs. 50,000/- during the pendency of writ petition. Accordingly, Rs. 1.50 lacs (Rupees One Lacs and Fifty Thousand Only) be released to the workman out of the amount lying deposited in this Court. Balance amount together with interest accrued thereon, if any, be released to the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous. Disposed off.