36. It was in this context argued for the respondent that the employer in the present case had given ample opportunity to the employee by giving him warnings, asking him to improve and even extended his probation twice and this was not a case of unfairness and this Court should not interfere. It is true that where the employee had been given suitable warnings, requested to improve, or where he was given a long rope by way of extension of probation, this Court has said that the termination orders cannot be held to be punitive. [See in this connection Hindustan Paper Corpn. v. Purnendu Chakrobarty , Oil & Natural Gas Commission v. Dr Md. S. Iskender Ali , Unit Trust of India v. T. Bijaya Kumar , Principal, Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education & Research, Pondicherry v. S. Andel and a labour case Oswal Pressure Die Casting Industry v. Presiding Officer .] But in all these cases, the orders were simple orders of termination which did not contain any words amounting to stigma. In case we come to the conclusion that there is stigma in the impugned order, we cannot ignore the effect it will have on the probationer's future whatever be the earlier opportunities granted by the respondentOrganisation to the appellant to improve.
