JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE challenge is to the award of the Labour Court by which it has set aside the order of termination and ordered the reinstatement of the workman with 75 percent back wages. A few facts.
(2.) THE respondent-workmen was appointed as Secretary by the petitioner-bank on November 26, 1986 for a period of 89 days on a consolidated salary of Rs. 500/- per month. On the expiry of this period, the workman made another application for employment. Vide order dated February 23, 1987, he was again appointed for a period of 89 days, whereupon he submitted his joining report on February 24, 1987. On the expiry of the stipulated period of 89 days, the respondent again submitted an application. Vide order dated May 25, 1987, he was appointed for a period of 89 days. A copy of this letter of appointment has been produced on record as Annexure P-4. A perusal of this order shows that as on earlier occassions, the appointment had been made on a contract basis and the services of the workman could be "terminated at 'any time' without notice before the expiry of above period. " On June 24,1987, the petitioner terminated his services. The workman, according to the petitioner joined service of another Cooperative Society viz. the Muradgarh Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Muradgarh. It is alleged that while serving with this Society, he embezzled a sum of Rs. 1,26,172. 00 and a charge-sheet was served on him. After the lapse of more than three years, on July 5, 1990, the workman served a notice of demand of the petitioner. Vide order dated December 12, 1990, the appropriate Govt. refused to make a 'reference' on the ground that the workman had raised the dispute after three years from the date of termination. However, the workman persisted and vide order dated August 5, 1991, the matter was referred to the Labour Court. Vide its award dated December 10,1993, the Labour Court has held that the provisions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act having not been complied with, the termination order is illegal and consequently set it aside. It has ordered the reinstatement of the workman with 75 per cent back wages. Aggrieved by this Award, the management has approached this Court through the present writ petition. It has challenged the order of reference dated August 5, 1991 (Annexure P-9 to the writ petition) as also the award of the Labour Court on various grounds.
(3.) IN response to the notice of motion issued by this Court, the respondent-workman has filed a written statement. It has been interalia averred that the appointment having been made for 89 days would have expired on August 23, 1987 by which time he would have completed 240 days in service. The action of management in not allowing the workman to complete his full term amounted to an unfair labour practice. It has been further stated that the Govt. had wrongly refused to make a reference to the Labour Court. He had submitted a representation dated December 17, 1990 whereupon, the reference had been made after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The averment in the writ petition that the respondent had jointed the Muradgarh Cooperative Credit and Service Society Ltd. Muradgarh has not been denied. It has, however, been averred that he had resigned from the service of the Society on February 28, 1994 and his resignation had been accepted. It has been further averred that the charge of embezzlement had not been proved against him. The respondent claims that the delay has been rightly condoned by the Labour Court and that the award is legal and valid.;