S.U.KHAN, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the award dated September 30, 1981 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court in Adjudication Case No. 25 of 1981. Through the said award, it has been held that termination of services of respondent No. 2 Vijay Kumar Srivastava by petitioner employer on July 31, 1980/ August 1, 1980 was illegal as it was in violation of Section 19 of U.P Dookan Aur Vanijya Adhishthan Adhiniyam, 1964.
(2.) Petitioner had pleaded before the Labour Court that respondent No. 2 was employed by it on June 16, 1980 on the post of Assistant Operator and since August 1, 1980 he did not report on duty. Sections 19 and 20 of the aforesaid Act are quoted below: "Section 19. Discharge of employee by his employer-(l) No employee, other than an employee engaged for a specified period or in a leave vacancy, shall be discharged from service by his employer except on the ground that- (a) the post held by him has been retrenched; or (b) he is unfit to perform his duties on the ground of infirmity or continued ill-health; and he has been served with a notice in writing containing the grounds of discharge. The notice shall be for a period of not less than thirty days, or such longer period as may be required under the terms of employment: Provided that the notice of discharge may be of a shorter period if the same is accompanied with payment of wages to the employee for the number of days the notice is short of the required period. (2) Nothing in sub-Section (1) shall apply to dismissal for misconduct. Section 20. Termination of employment by an employee-(l) No employee, other than an employee engaged for a specified period or in a leave vacancy, shall terminate his employment, except after notice of thirty days, or of such longer period, as may be required under the terms of his employment. (2) Where an employee fails to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1), his unpaid wages for a period not exceeding fifteen days may be forfeited to his employer."
(3.) Labour Court ultimately set-aside the termination of respondent No. 2 and directed the petitioner to take back respondent No. 2 in service and also directed that petitioner should pay the entire salary and allowance to the respondent No. 2 from August 1, 1980. Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited an authority of this Court in Kanpur I.D. Co-operative State v. V.K. Srivastava 1980 (40) FLR 325. In the said authority, it has been held that provisions of the aforesaid Act do not confer any right on the employee to get the order terminating his services declared invalid and only remedy for breach of any provision of the said Act is as provided under Section 33 of the Act which prescribes penalties.;