V.N. Khare, J. - (1.) BY means of this petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India the Petitioner has come up before this Court against the award dated 19th June 1985, given by the Labour Court, Meerut.
(2.) THE Petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder. The Cane Commissioner U.P. in exercise of powers under Section 122 of the Act framed regulations known as "U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulation" 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). The Regulation were published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette. The regulations governed service conditions of the employees of the Cane Cooperative Society throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh. Under the provisions of the aforesaid Regulations the State of Uttar Pradesh constituted District Cane service Authority, Muzaffarngar and Regional Cane service Authority, Meerut. Under the Regulation the Authority is employer of the employees of the Ganna Vikash Samities limited.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2 was appointed as a Sessional Clerk on the direction of District Cane Service Authority, Muzaffarnagar by the order of the Secretary of the Society dated 22nd February 1976. On 19th May 1978, the Chiarman of the Authority terminated services of Respondent No. 2 in exercise of power under Regulation 34 of the Regulations, Since no conciliation was arrived at before the Conciliation Officer, the State Government in exercise of power under Section 4 -K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, referred the matter in dispute for adjudication before the Labour Court, U.P. Meerut by an order dated 24th November 1983. The matter in dispute was numbered as Adjudication case No. 20 of 1984. The parties filed written statement and rejoinder affidavit and led evidence. The Labour Court found that Respondent No. 2 was not paid a week's pay in lieu of notice and as such termination of his services was illegal and by the impugned award set aside the order of termination of service of Respondent No. 2 and directed his reinstatement.;