- (1.) This petition is directed against award Annexure P7 (published in Haryana Government Gazette dated 4.8.1987) passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faridabad (respondent No. 2) in Reference No. 222 of 1982 for reinstatement of respondent No. 3 - Subhash Chander (hereinafter described as 'the workman') with continuity of service and back wages.
(2.) The workman was appointed on the post of Secretary, Cooperative Credit and Service Societies on ad hoc basis order dated 25.8.1977 issued by the Chairman of the Mahendergarh Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Mahendergarh (for short, 'the petitioner'). After about one year and seven months, his service was terminated in pursuance of resolution dated 21.3.1979 passed by the Board of Administrators of the petitioner. The appeal filed by him was dismissed as withdrawn. He then raised a dispute questioning the termination of his service. The same was referred by the Government of Haryana to Labour Court, Faridabad under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Rs. 1947 Act').
(3.) On a consideration of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, respondent No. 2 held that the service of the workman had been terminated by way of retrenchment and the same was liable to be invalidated because he had not been given one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation. He further held that the action taken by the management of the petitioner was violative of the rules of natural justice. The relevant extracts of the award passed by respondent No. 2 are reproduced below :- "In between the parties there is no dispute that Subhash Chander had joined on 13th September, 1977 as Manager Mini Bank and was relieved on 27th February, 1980 and during that period he had worked without any break. Obviously this period is of more than 240 days, and he is entitled to be termed as having been in continuous service of the respondent as defined under Section 25-B of the said Act. The plea of the respondent is that he was appointed on probation for 2 years on 27th May, 1978, vide Ex. M-7 and this period was extended for one year more and before the expiry thereof his services were terminated as no longer required. This procedure adopted by the Bank is not appreciable. He was appointed vide appointment letter Ex.M-6 on ad hoc basis and then and there he should have been placed under probation if required. There was hardly any necessity to appoint him on probation vide Ex.M-7. The idea behind the order of termination on the face of it is that some MLA has tabled Assembly question about the said appointments and to have a favourable reply, order of termination has to be passed. It is now admitted case of the respondent that four out of seven managers are still in service and for that reason advanced is that they had obtained stay order from the Civil Court. However, on the file there is no order of Civil Court. In this manner, the order of termination on the face of it becomes a colourable one. Respondent is not supposed to pick and choose and throw out some one and retain others. This approach is against the principles of natural justice. I have gone through the statement of respondent Managing Director but I do not find any force therein. On the other hand Subhash Chander has relied upon the statement of Bank's Clerk, who has stated that co-workers have been retained in service while he has been victimised in the matter. Admittedly, no retrenchment compensation was offered to him and on the face of it order of termination is a bad one since it is against the requirement of Section 25-F of the said Act. I hereby quash the order of termination and reinstate him into his job with full back wages and further with continuity of service.";