S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against a judgment and order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14525 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the Respondent herein questioning an award dated 24-2-1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh was allowed. The Respondent herein applied for appointment as a Typist having come to learn from reliable sources that a post of Typist was lying vacant in the Appellant-Bank. For filling up the said post, neither any advertisement was issued nor the Employment Exchange was notified. She even did not possess the requisite qualification. Only on the basis of her application she was appointed as a Typist on an ad hoc basis for a period of 89 days from 6-1-1985. The said appointment was, however subject to the approval of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies Haryana. Relaxation in respect of the qualification was given to her by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies on 23-12-1985. She had been given extensions of 89 days from time to time from 6-1-1985. The said period of 89 days eventually came to an end on 30-5-1986. Her services were not continued thereafter. No order of termination, however, was issued. She allegedly made a representation to the appropriate authority for continuing her in service. Indisputably, she thereafter joined the services of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) on or about 10-8-1988. Some other employees similarly situated raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the Appropriate Government for adjudication before an Industrial Court. The said employees got some relief in the said industrial adjudication. It stands admitted that the Appellant-Bank did not succeed in the High Court in the writ petition questioning the said award whereupon the concerned employees were reinstated.
(2.) Presumably, because reliefs were granted in its award by the Industrial Court to the other workmen, a writ petition was filed by the Respondent herein before the High Court on 15-5-1989. The said writ petition was permitted to be withdrawn on 11-5-1993 stating: "Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that this petition be dismissed as withdrawn so that the petitioner may approach the Labour Court. Dismissed as withdrawn".
(3.) Only on 30-9-1993, a demand notice was issued by the Respondent praying for a reference of the industrial dispute by the State. It is furthermore not in dispute that in the year 1996, the Appellant-Bank issued advertisement for making appointments in the vacant posts but the Respondent did not apply therefor. The appointments had been made by the Bank pursuant to or in furtherance of the said advertisement and the selection process carried out in that behalf. Before the Labour Court, the Appellant herein raised a contention that the entry in the services by the Respondent being a back-door one, her appointment was a nullity and in any event on the expiry of the contractual period on 30-5-1986 her services automatically came to an end.;