A. P. Misra, J. - (1.) The petitioner by means of this writ petition has sought for quashing of the order of the Labour Court, dated 23 October 1982 (annexure IV to the writ petition).
(2.) By means of the impugned order the Labour Court held, the termination of the services of respondent 3 was illegal and liable to be set aside and he was directed to be reinstated and paid full salary along with the benefit, which would have accrued to him in case his services were not terminated.
(3.) According to the petitioner, the respondent 3 was appointed temporarily on the post of apprentice in the society on 25 October 1980, and his services were terminated by the petitioner by means of letter, dated 30 June 1980, sent by the Managing Director. Thereafter, respondent 3 moved an application on 11 September 1980, under S. 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central), 1947, before the Conciliation Officer, Jhansi. The case set up by respondent 3 was that his services were terminated without any notice or charge-sheet and against the provisions of rules ; and even one month's salary in lieu of notice was not paid. In the objection filed by the petitioner before the Conciliation Officer it was stated that the society of the petitioner is a registered society under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1945 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 1947 Act), are not applicable and as such the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and thus the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent 3 does not come within the purview of S. 2(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act (Central), 1947. After hearing, the Conciliation Officer recommended the matter to the State Government, who, in turn, under S. 4 K of the 1947 Act referred the matter to the Labour Tribunal. According to the petitioner, it had no knowledge of the information of the date of hearing and the statements in the impugned order that the petitioner was served about the date of hearing is wrong. Further, the impugned order holding that the services of the respondent 3 were wrongly terminated and further direction to the petitioner to pay salary to the respondent 3 up to date were challenged as having been made illegally and without jurisdiction.;