- (1.) These appeals are directed against orders made by the High Court in writ proceedings, firstly by a learned single Judge and thereafter by a Division Bench affirming a award passed under the Industrial Disputes act (in short the 'act'). 'the dispute between the parties was directly raised under Section (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes (Karnataka amendment) Act, 1957 calling in question termination of the services of first respondent hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') a contrary to the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.
(2.) Facts leading to this dispute are as allows: the respondent had been employed from january 1, 1987 in the appellant's Bank and as placed on probation for a period of one car. His period of probation was extended price, firstly up to the period of June 10, 1988 and thereafter upto December 31,1988. to an inspection of the Bank in terms of action 65 of the Karnataka Co-operative societies Act it was noticed that the, appointments of seven persons including the respondent are illegal and irregular. On receipt of a show-cause notice the Bank decided to terminate the services of all the even employees' who had been illegally, appointed. Thus the order of termination dated November 6, 1988 was sent to the respondent. The Bank was subsequently superseded and an Administrator too was appointed who made recommendation in, 1991 for regularisation of six employees those services were dispensed with along with the respondent. However, the administrator did not make such accommodation so far as the respondent was concerned in view of his poor service profiles. It is thereafter the dispute was raised by the respondent that his services too should have been continued.
(3.) The contention put forth on behalf of the respondent was accepted by the Labour court principally on the basis that there is no compliance of Section 25-F of the Act inasmuch as the respondent had been serving the appellant-Bank from January 1, 1987 and his services were sought to be put an end to only by the order made on November 6, 1988. Before the Labour Court the appellant contended that Section 25-F would not be attracted inasmuch as the services of the respondent had been put an end to during the period of probation, but the same was not considered. That is how the award was made in favour of the respondent. Unfortunately, the learned single Judge while dealing with the writ petition held that contention had not been raised before the Labour Court though at earlier stage of the order he noticed that the appellant had raised such a probation was due to expire on December 31, 1988. Thus, the facts are clear in this case that termination was within the period of probation.;