S. P. Goyal, J. - (1.) Respondent No. 4, Jagdish Sahai, was appointed Secretary - cum - Accountant of Municipal Committee, Raikot (hereinafter alled the Committee) vide Resolution No. 86/251, dated Aug. 24, 1965. This appointment was not approved by the Sub - Divisional Officer, Jagraon, who directed the Committee not to execute this decision vide Memo No. 3315/SDJ, "Mated Aug. 28, 1965. In spite of this direction, the Committee allowed respondent No. 4 to join the post of Secretary - cum - Accountant on Sept. 1, 1965. The Sub - Divisional Officer then suspended the said resolution under section 232 of the Punjab Municipal Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) vide order dated Sept. 17, 1965 and this order was confirmed by the Punjab Government under section 235 of the Act, vide Annexure 'B' dated March 15, 1966.
(2.) The resolution of the appointment of respondent No. 4 was suspended on the ground that the same could be passed only in a special meeting whereas it had been passed in an ordinary meeting. To remove this defect a special meeting of the Committee was called on Sept. 24, 1965 and a resolution appointing respondent No. 4 as Secretary was again passed. The Committee then approached the Secretary, Local Self Deptt. Punjab for sanction to retain the services of respondent No. 4 and wrote a similar letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, to get the approval of the Commissioner, Jullundur Division of the said appointment under section 38 of the Act. Before it could receive any reply, the Sub - Divisional Officer, Jagraon, wrote a Memo, to the Committee to dispense with the services of respondent No. 4 in accordance with the direction of the "Government contained in Annexure 'B' failing which it was stated that the members who had voted for the resolution would be liable for the loss being caused to the Committee. Consequently, the Committee vide resolution No. 27/99 dated June 30, 1966 dispensed with the services of respondent No. 4 with effect from July 1, 1966. An appeal filed by respondent No. 4 against this resolution was dismissed by the Sub - Divisional Officer. Thereafter, he raised an industrial dispute and on the failure of the Conciliation Officer to bring about the conciliation, a reference was made by the Labour Commissioner respondent No. 2 to the Labour Court for decision of the following dispute:- "Whether the termination of services of Jagdish Sahai is justified and in order ? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation he is entitled ?"
(3.) In support of his claim before the Labour Court, respondent No. 4 relied on the order of the State Government, Annexure R - 7, dated Feb. 4, 1967 whereby Resolution dated June 30, 1966 dispensing with his services was annulled and the Committee was directed to implement its resolution dated Sept. 24, 1965. The Committee was further advised to move the competent authority for approval of the appointment of the respondent No. 4 in accordance with its resolution No. 2/260, dated Sept. 24, 1965. Relying on this order, the Labour Court held that there was no justification with the Committee to dispense with the service of respondent No. 4 and consequently ordered his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. It is this award of the Labour Court dated May 17, 1969, Annexure 'C' which has been challenged by the Committee by way of petition under section 226 of the Constitution of India.;