- (1.) The defendant-State of Punjab has come up in this second appeal against the judgment and decree of Additional District Judge, Gurdaspur, dated November 26, 1987. While accepting the appeal of Prem Bhandari, the plaintiff, the suit filed by him was decreed. The trial Court, however, on December 20, 1986, had dismissed the suit.
(2.) Prem Bhandari, the plaintiff, was employed as a Beldar. His services were terminated vide order dated August 19, 1980 (Exhibit P.2). this order was challenged by Prem Bhandari by raising an industrial dispute. However, the Labour Court, Gurdaspur, vide his Award dated August 1, 1984 held that the reference was not maintainable as the respondent therein (the department of Thein Dam Project) was not an Industry. This led the plaintiff to challenge the order of termination of his services by the present suit, inter alia, on the ground that the order amounted to punishment as no notice or enquiry was held against the alleged misconduct on the basis of which the order was passed. In the written statement the defendants took up several pleas including the plea of limitation as well, as that the plaintiff was working as work-changed employee. He was asked to do the duties of Beldar. On his refusal to do so the order was passed. The said order did not amount to punishment. In the replication the plaintiff reiterated the stand as taken up in the plaint. The trial proceeded on the following issues:- 1) Whether the order dated 19.8.1980 of defendant No. 3 terminating the services of the plaintiff is illegal, void and not finding on the plaintiff ? OPP 2) Whether the suit is barred by time? OPD 3) whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD Relief.
(3.) The trial Court held issue No. 1 against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2 was held in favour of the plaintiff and issue No. 3 was held in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.3 was held against the defendant and the suit was held to be maintainable. In fact this issue was not pressed. The lower appellate Court has reversed the findings of the trial Court on issue No. 1 and held the order of termination the services of the plaintiff to be illegal and thus decreed the suit holding that the plaintiff would be entitled to full back-wages and continuity of service.;