Harbans Lal, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been moved by Habri Cooperative Credit and Service Limited, Habri under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned award Annexure P.2, dated 2nd May, 1987. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that prior to coming into force of the Common Cadre Rules, 1975, the respective Societies used to' employ its staff. Under these Rules, all the Secretaries working in the Primary or Central Cooperative Societies were screened and selected by the Appointing Authority, Balwant Singh - -respondent (hereinafter to be referred as 'the workman') was not selected by the authority. Consequently, he was no more in service of the petitioner -Society. He had relinquished the charge on 1st September, 1976. After the enforcement of these Rules, the Primary Cooperative Society ceased to have any control over the appointment or removal of the Secretaries of the Society. Thus, the workman was not the employee of the petitioner -Society. He was not brought on the Common Cadre Rules referred to above. He did not ask for any reference to the arbitration as contemplated by Sections 55 and 56 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, nor Section 102 of the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. He remained at home after 1st September, 1976 when he gave the charge of his post. He preferred a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act') and served a demand notice under Section 2A of the Act on 2nd July, 1984. State Government did not refer the same for adjudication on the ground that he was not the employee of the said Bank. The petitioner -Society is a primary Society and is a member of the Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Kurukshetra. Since the dispute was not referred for adjudication against the Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank Limited, no reference could be preferred against the petitioner -Society, who was not the employer of the workman. However, the demand notice was referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala. Since the workman was not the employee of the petitioner -Society, so the later did not prefer to contest the dispute. Consequently, the Labour Court passed an award, dated 2nd May, 1987 ex parte Annexure P.2. The very demand of the workman and the decision of the Government referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute between the workman and the petitioner -Society is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, as there existed no relationship of master and servant between them. Moreover, there was no order of termination of service of the workman -Balwant Singh. The impugned award Annexure P.2 is patently illegal and without jurisdiction on the grounds as embodied in this petition. In his written statement, the respondent -workman has averred that he was possessing all the pre -requisite qualifications as envisaged under Rule 9.6 of the Common Cadre Rules, which came into force on 3rd March, 1975, whereas the answering respondent remained in the employment of the petitioner -Society till 1st September, 1976. His services were dispensed with without any reason or notice as contemplated under the Act. He had served the petitioner -Society since 1971 to 1st September, 1976 and had never been an employee of the Central Bank under the Common Cadre Rules. The demand notice was served upon the petitioner -Society. The reference against the Kurukshetra Central Cooperative Bank was declined by the State Government, - -vide memo on the sole ground that the answering respondent was not an employee of the Bank and that is why the dispute was referred. Lastly, it has been prayed that this petition may be dismissed.
(2.) AFTER hearing the representative of the workman, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala passed the impugned award by observing as under: - - The matter is already subjudice with the Court without awaiting the result of the criminal case services of Shri Balwant Singh have been terminated in violation of Section 25(F). So, I think that the termination order passed by the respondent regarding services of workman is at this stage unjust and illegal during the pendency of Criminal Case against the workman and other person. So, termination of the workman is set aside with the relief of reinstatement with continuity in service and with full back wages, I pass an ex parte award regarding the dispute in hand between the parties accordingly. This Award of mine regarding the present industrial dispute shall not have any effect on the Criminal Case pending in the Court of S.D.J.M., Kaithal. Neither this Award shall in any respect influence the mind of the Criminal Court while delivering judgment in Criminal Case. Feeling aggrieved with this award, the petitioner has filed this petition.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the findings returned by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court with due care and circumspection.;