H.S. Bedi, J. - (1.) The petitioner Nathu Ram Sharma, since deceased was appointed Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad vide Annexure P-1 dated 20th September, 1976 for a period of three years with effect from the date that he took charge. In Annexure P-1 it was stated that he would be governed by the Civil Services Rules as applicable to temporary Government servants. Vide Annexure P-2 dated 20.9.1979 the term of appointment of the petitioner was extended for a period of one year with effect from 24.9.1979 on the same terms and conditions as set out in Annexure P-1. On 18.4.1980, however, vide Annexure P-3 the services of the petitioner were terminated and one month salary in lieu of notice was given to him. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P-3 the petitioner has filed the present petition praying that he was entitled to continue in service up to 23.9.1980 in view of the order Annexure P-2 and his services having been terminated on 18.4.1980, he was entitled to the wages for the intervening period. During the pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner expired and his legal representatives have already been brought on record under the orders of this Court.
(2.) The stand of the respondent in the written statement was that the petitioner was a temporary Government servant and his services had been terminated in accordance with Rule 5.9(b) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Volume II (hereinafter called 'the Rules') which are said to have been applicable to the service in question. It has further been stated that one month wages which were given in lieu of notice satisfied the requirement of the Rules.
(3.) Mr. Dinesh Kumar learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the very reading of Rule 5.9(b) to which reference has been made above, would clearly show that it does not apply to an appointment such as the one held by the petitioner. Rule 5.9(b) is quoted below:- "When it proposed to discharge a person holding a temporary post before the expiry of the terms of his appointment or a person employed temporarily on monthly wages, without specified limit of time or duty, a month's notice of discharge should be given to such a person, and his pay or wages must be paid for any period by which such notice falls short of a month." He has urged that the aforesaid Rule stands incorporated in the Chapter dealing with pensions and if at all would apply to only such persons whose terms of appointment was not specified, and as in the case of the petitioner the time limit had been specified in Annexures P-1 and P-2, the stand of the State was not tenable. He has then brought to my notice the additional plea of the State that action had been taken against the petitioner not only in terms of the letter of appointment but under the provisions of Sections 7 and 8 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). Mr. Dinesh Kumar has further urged that the aforesaid sections do not deal with the discharge and termination of services of Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunals or of Labour Courts as the only section applicable in such situations is section 7-C of the Act which provides that no person shall be appointed or continue in the office as a Presiding Officer in case he is not an independent person or has attained the age of 5 years and that as neither of these disqualifications could be fastened on the petitioner, the ultimate period that was to be given to him was to be determined only with reference to Annexures P-1 and P-2. For this purpose, reliance has been placed on Dr. Bool Chand v. Chancellor, Kurukshetra University, AIR 1968 SC 292 and Dr. L.P. Agarwal v. Union of India and others, 1992(1) RSJ 557 : 1992(3) SCT 109 (SC).;