As per case facts, the appellant's services were terminated. A Tribunal found this termination illegal and ordered reinstatement. The respondent challenged this in a Writ Petition, which a Single Judge ... allowed, setting aside the award but preventing recovery of Section 17-B payments. The appellant filed this appeal, arguing she was a 'workman' and her termination was stigmatic, not a simple termination. The respondent contended it was a simple termination of a probationer and she was not a 'workman'. The question arose whether the appellant was a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act and if her termination, while on probation, was a termination simpliciter or punitive. Finally, the court upheld the termination as simpliciter, finding it non-punitive as it lacked a full-scale inquiry and a finding of guilt, considering the reasons as 'motive' not 'foundation'. However, it set aside the Single Judge's finding that the appellant was not a 'workman', relying on a Division Bench ruling. It also affirmed that payments made under Section 17-B are non-recoverable.