- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) Respondent No. 3 Awadesh Kumar Pathak was employed by the Petitioner on 11.11.1986, copy of appointment letter is annexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. In the first sentence of the appointment letter it was mentioned that Respondent No. 3 was being appointed on the temporary post of Lab Assistant, in para 3 it was mentioned that appointment should be subject to the terms and conditions as provided under the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations 1975 and other relevant Rules etc. In para 8 of the appointment letter it was mentioned that Respondent No. 3 should be on probation for a period of one year which might be extended for one more year. In para 11 it was mentioned that services were purely temporary and liable to be terminated on once month's notice or pay. Annexure 4 to the writ petition is copy of the order dated 11.8.1987 passed by the Petitioners extending the probation period of Respondent No. 3 for a further period of six months. Thereafter, through order dated 25.3.1988 services of Respondent No. 3 were terminated, copy of the said order is annexed as Annexure-15 to the writ petition according to which temporary services of the Respondent No. 3 were terminated with immediate effect in accordance with the Clause 17(2) of the Service Regulation 1975 and Clause 11 of his appointment letter dated 11.11.1986 giving him one month's salary in lieu of notice.
(3.) The Respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Labour Court to decide as to whether the action of Petitioner-employer terminating the services of its workman Respondent No. 3 w.e.f. 29.3.1988 was just and valid or not?;