2. The ground on which the respondent was terminated was that his performance was not satisfactory. No charge-sheet was given and no enquiry was held. It was also not explained how his performance was not satis--factory. Since the appellant is a commercial establishment and is a nationalised bank. Wage Commission Award applies to it. According to para. 258 (2), negligence and inefficiency both individually amount to mis--conduct. Even otherwise performance includes work as well as conduct. Since there was allegation of misconduct, giving of show-cause notice and holding of enquiry were necessary according to sub-papas. (4) and (5) o A para. 258. Even if there had not been any allegation of misconduct, the order of termination was liable to be set aside, inasmuch as the respondent having successfully completed the probationary period could have been terminated under para. 234, according to which, giving of one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice was a mandatory provision, which has not been complied with. So from whichever angle the case be viewed, the order of termination is not maintainable and thus was rightly struck down by the learned lower court.
3. As upshot of the observation made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.