In case of misconduct or indiscipline proven, but there are technical defects in termination, compensation may be awarded instead of reinstatement. An application under Section 33C(1) of the ID Act is maintainable, when the amount due is not in dispute. Termination of a probationer on the ground of misrepresentation, without conducting an enquiry, would be mala fide. Probation period cannot be a preventive factor or obstacle for denying maternity benefits to a woman. Service in two establishments under a common employer suffices for eligibility for election as a nominee of workmen in the Works Committee. Management cannot introduce a condition of service which is not stipulated in the schedule to the Standing Orders Act and even if they propose to do so, it can only be in the manner as prescribed under the Act and the Rules. Privatisation of a particular department will not lead to a violation of section 33 of the ID Act. Employer cannot deny employer-employee relationship when regular salary payments were being made by referring to them as donations on account of financial difficulties. When the incident of misconduct has been admitted by the delinquent, mere non-examination of the witness would not vitiate the order of dismissal. Report of ESI Medical Board cannot be overturned by the Court unless the same is mala fide. It is for the workman to bring on record any document supporting his argument that he had worked for 240 days in the year preceding the date of retrenchment. A seasonal worker performing work intermittently cannot raise a claim of reinstatement citing artificial breaks belatedly after 10 years. Amount mentioned in the salary voucher of the employee, instead of depositions, will be considered for ascertaining the actual salary received.