S.S. Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) PETITIONER is the employer of respondent No. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab dated 7.4.1998 (copy Annexure P/12) vide which it was held that the action of the petitioner in reducing the rank of respondent No. 2 from that of Salesman to that of Messenger which also amounted to termination of his services, without enquiry, on the charges of misconduct is illegal and unjustified and it was declared that he shall be deemed to be in service as a Salesman without break and also entitled to all the consequential benefits including full back wages.
(2.) THE case of respondent No. 2 is that he was employed as Salesman with the petitioner since 1988. He was awarded penalty of reduction in rank by appointing him as Messenger in the minimum of scale of that post. He served a demand notice contending that his services were terminated w.e.f 6.2.1994 without any notice, charge sheet or enquiry and that his order of punishment was illegal, null and void. The State Government initially declined to make a reference of the dispute and rejected the demand of respondent No. 2 on the assumption that the action of the management did not amount of termination of service but it was his transfer to another job on which he did not join. However, the Government re -considered the matter on the representation of respondent No. 2 and referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Punjab and the term of reference was as under : - "Whether the action of the management in reverting the workman from the post of Salesman to that of helper is justified ? If not, to what relief is he entitled - The Industrial Tribunal passed the impugned award and hence this writ petition has been filed by the employer.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that this writ petition is without merit. The post of a Messenger/Helper is a class IV Post. Respondent No. 2 was appointed as Salesman. The post of Sale -man is a Class III post. It is also not in dispute that re - spondent No. 2 was initially no! appointed to any class IV post on the establishment of the petitioner, therefore, there was no question of reverting him to a class IV post from the higher post of Clerk or Salesman. The Tribunal has observed that the reversion necessarily implies reduction in rank and would be in the nature of major penalty particularly when it is based on the specific charge of misconduct. It, therefore, held that the order of reversion in this case amounted to illegal termination of service.;