D.V. Sehgal, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was appointed as Field Officer in the employment of the Punjab State Co -operative Supply and Marketing, Federation Limited, Respondent No. 3 (for short 'the MARKFED') in September 1967. He was on probation for a period of one year which he successfully completed. He claims to be a permanent employee of the MARKFED governed by the Punjab State Supply and Marketing Co -operatives Services (Common Cadre) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called the Common Cadre Rules'). He was elected President of the MARKFED Employees, Union, and in that capacity he espoused the causes of the employees of Respondent No. 3 and also claims to have exposed serious lapses and financial defalcations on the part of his higher authorities On 21st December, 1979 under the directions of the MARKFED Employees, Co -ordination Committee, he in his capacity as the President of the Union, served a notice Annexure P. 1 on the then Managing Director of the MARKFED bringing to his notice the illegal appointments of the Law Officer, the Training Officer and some others Certain demands were also made therein and it was stated that in case the same were not met with the members of the Union would take resort to mass casual leave, sit, in strike general strike, demonstrations, hunger strike etc. He contends that instead of accepting the demands of the employees contained in Annexure P. 1, his services as Field Officer were hurriedly terminated, on 2nd January, 1980 by taking resort to provision (a), to Rule 2.10 of the Common Cadre Rules, - -vide order Annexing P. 2 which was delivered to him through a special messenger Reputed from Chandigarh to Patiala where he was posted.
(2.) AGGRIEVED against the order Annexure P. 2, he filed an appeal dated 8th January, 1980 Annexure P. 3 before the Registrar Cooperative Societies, Respondent No. 2, who at that time was functioning as Administrator of the MARKFED because it had no Board of Directors at the relevant time. Respondent No. 2 refused to stay operation of the order of termination Annexure P. 2. The said appeal was in fact, never heard by Respondent No. 2. It was instead transferred to the Board of Directors, after its constitution, for its decision. Even the Board of Directors did not hear the appeal. He therefore filed a petition dated 4th March, 1982 under Rule 217(e) read with Rule 1.9 of the Common Cadre Rules before Respondent No 2 who simply directed that the Board of Directors should decide the Petitioner's appeal within one month. In spite of the fact that the matter was brought on the agenda Annexure P. 4 for a meeting before the Board of Directors for consideration, no final decision was taken. The Petitioner thereon approached the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, for reference of the dispute for adjudication under Section 10(1)(c) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act') Thereupon, the following dispute was referred to the Labour Court: Whether termination of services of Shri Kuldip Singh workman is justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation is he entitled?
(3.) HE filed his claim application Annexure P. 6 before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, Respondent No. 1 Respondent No. 3 filed its written statement Annexure P7 thereto. Both the parties produced their evidence. Respondent No. 1 made his award dated 18th March, 1985 Annexure P. 13 holding that, the order terminating the services of the Petitioner was justified and in order. Consequently, his claim was rejected. The award Annexure P. 13 has been impugned through the present writ petition. A prayer has been made that the same should be quashed and the order of termination of the services of the Petitioner Annexure P, 2 being void he should be held to be in continuous service of the MARKFED and he should be declared entitled to all the consequential relief 's including full backwages and other benefits attached to the post he was holding at the time of termination of his services, A prayer has also been made that the relevant part of the Rule 2.10 of the Common Cadre Rules which has been impugned being arbitrary and unconstitutional should be held ultra vires. A prayer has also been made that Respondent No. 3 should be directed to pay salary to the Petitioner from 2nd January, 1980 to 18th March, 1985 in case it is found that the Petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages.;