A.N. Varma, J. - (1.) Mohammed Ishtiaq Khan, respondent 3 herein, was initially appointed as a class IV employee on a temporary basis, of the petitioner, namely, Uttar Pradesh State Road, Transport Corporation, with effect from 1 to 14 December 1972. Thereafter his appointment was continued under letters of appointment extending his appointment from time to time. This state of things continued till 1 August 1975, when the Assistant Regional Manager of the petitioner-corporation gave him a months notice stating that his services were no longer required and the same are being terminated. This led to an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government under S. 10(l)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute referred was whether the order, dated 1 August 1975, terminating the services of Mohammed Ishtiaq Khan v/as valid and proper and, if not, to what relief/compensation was he entitled. Mohammed Ishtiaq Khan appeared in support of his case and also filed documentary evidence before the Labour Court. His case was that he was a regular employee and the impugned order, dated 1 August 1975, purporting to terminate his services treating him as a temporary employee by giving him a simple one months notice was unsustainable in law. It was also pleaded that his termination amounted to retrenchment and he having worked for more than 240 days could not be retrenched without complying with the requirements of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was asserted that no retrenchment compensation was either paid or offered to him.
(2.) The petitioners filed a written statement before the Labour Court asserting that Mohammed Ishtiaq Khan was not a regular employee but was a temporary hand and his services were hence validly terminated by giving him a months notice. They however, did not adduce any evidence what ever before the Labour Court in support of their case. The Labour Court considered the evidence on record and held relying on, a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. N. Sundramm [1976 - II L.L.N. 5] , that the termination of the services of the concerned workman was wrongful and unjustified inasmuch it he was neither paid nor offered retrenchme. compensation as required by law. Labour Court directed the rein statement the workman with continuity in service full back-wages.
(3.) In view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Ink [1976 - II L.L.N. 5] (vide supra), as well as Chandu Lal v. Pan American World Airways Inc. [1985-II L. L. N. 582] , Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, could not seriously challenge the finding of the Labour Court that the termination of the employment of the concerned workman amounted to retrenchment and consequently in the absence of compliance with the mandatory provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act the order of termination passed against the workman was clearly wrongful and unjustified entitling him to reinstatement.;