S. K. MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) BY this appeal, under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, the appellants State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Head Officer Tilak Marg, Jaipur (for short 'the Bank' herein) and others, question the correctness of the order dated October 19, 1985 of the learned Single Judge of this Court, by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent was allowed and the order terminating his services (Anx. 1) dated April 23, 1983 was quashed. \
(2.) THE petitioner-respondent was employed as a clerk in the Bank from January 11, 1972. He was a permanent employee of the Bank. He worked in Central Accounts Department at Bikaner from January 11, 1972 to February 14, 1982 and, thereafter, at the Jasusar Branch till the order of termination was issued. It appears that a preliminary enquiry was held against the petitioner-respondent and a report was submitted by Shri B. C. Chhabra. THE extracts from that report have been submitted by the Bank as Ex. R. 3. THE material portion of the report may be quoted as under:- "in conclusion I have to state that Shri J. C. Khadgawat is a person with a tendency to out turn the normal channels for redressal of his grievance and can go to the extent of making false and frivolous complaints. THE whole evidence of Shri Khadgawat reveals, particularly the letter addressed to Shri Samirdas and marked Ex. 1 that to cut with the position of the recognised union of the Bank employees he could resort to malign the senior officers of the Bank and for a sake the secrecy bond so vital in a credit institution that his CONTINUOUS INDULGENCE TO EXTRA constitutional activities is a great hazard to build up the image of the institution in public eye. " After the submission of the report, the order of termination of services (Anx. 1) dated April 23, 1983 was passed, which may be reproduced hereinbelow:- "we have to advise that as you have forfeited the trust and confidence of the Bank, your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. In terms of paragraph 522 of the Shastri Award, we are paying you 3 months' pay and allowances being Rs. 4980. 15 p. in lieu of notice. Though your termination cannot be deemed to be "retrenchment" within the meaning of section 2 (00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, yet with a view to avoiding any legal complications, you are hereby being paid one month's wages being Rs. 1660. 05 P in lieu of one month's notice in terms of section 25 f (a) of the Act ibid and a sum of Rs. 9130. 30 P being retrenchment compensation as required in terms of section 25 F (b) of the Act ibid. Three cheques for the aforesaid amounts are enclosed. Please note that the amounts outstanding against you towards loans availed by you from the Bank will be adjusted out of the permissible amount of your Provident Fund and Gratuity payable to you. " The petitioner-respondent filed the writ petition on May 4, 1983 praying that an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the order Anx. 1 may be issued allowing him all consequential benefits, such as salary etc, The order Anx, 1 dated April 23, 1983 was challenged on the ground that para 522 of the Shastri Award, in which this order has been passed, is invalid and further that it has been passed on the ground of malides and that it is arbitrary and in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The writ petition was opposed by the Bank, by filing a reply dated May 8, 1983. While controverting the grounds raised by the petitioner-respondent for quashing the order of termination, an objection was raised that the writ petition was not maintainable for enforcement of para 522 of the Shastri Award. It was submitted that the petitioner-respondent had no cause of action and even if he has, it was a matter to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ("the Act") for, the matter relating to the termination of services is an 'industrial dispute'. It was also submitted that instead of taking disciplinary proceedings and thereafter passing the order of dismissal, a lenient view was taken by the Bank and the petitioner was discharged from service, after giving him three months' notice and allowances in lieu thereof. Along with the reply, the documents, (Exs. R. 1, to R. 4) were filed. It may be stated that Ex. R 4 contains the extracts from the statements of the petitioner-respondent made before Shri H. C. Chhabra, the Investigating Officer, during the preliminary enquiry. A rejoinder to the reply was filed reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition and it was submitted that the petitioner-respondent has rightly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order Anx. 1 dated April 23, 1983. The learned single Judge after considering the contentions that were raised before him, allowed the writ petition by his order dated October 18, 1985 and quashed the order Anx. l terminating the services dated April 23, 1983. He also gave consequential direction to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal as aforesaid. Caveat was lodged on behalf of the petitioner-respondent. We have heard Mr. MM. Vyas, learned counsel for appellants and Mr. M. Mridul for the respondent no. 1 (caveator ). Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned single Judge erred in entertaining the writ petition, which purported to challenge para 522 of the Shastri Award. According to him, Shastri Award, which was later on modified by the Desai Award, was like a decree of civil court and as it is not a statutory provision, it cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution and further as a decision of the civil court cannot be challenged by filing a writ petition the Paragraphs contained in the Shastri Award also cannot be challenged.
(3.) THE learned single Judge opined that the objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition is devoid of any merit, for, the writ petition is not for the enforcement of the Shastri Award, but, in the writ petition, the validity of the order Anx. 1 dated April 23, 1983 terminating the services of the petitioner, has been challenged and according to him that was permissible in accordance with Chandulal Vs. Management M/s. P. A. W. Airways Inc. (1) and Bhanwarlal Vs. R. S. R. T. C. (2 ). We may usefully reproduce Para 522 of the Shastri Award: "522. We now proceed to the subject of termination of employment. We give the following directions: (1) In case not involving disciplinary action and subject to clause (6) below, the employment of a permanent employee may be terminated by three months' notice on payment of three month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. The services of a probationer may be terminated by one month's notice or on payment of a month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. (2) A permanent employee desirous of leaving the service of the Bank shall give 1 month's notice in writing to the manager. A probationer desirous of leaving service shall give 14 days, notice in writing to the manager. A permanent employee or a probationer shall when he leaves service, be given an order of relief signed by the manager. (3) If any permanent employee leaves the service of the Bank without giving notice, he shall be liable to pay the Bank one month's pay and allowances. A probationer if he leaves service without giving notice, shall be liable for 14 days' pay and allowances. (4) The services of any employee other than a permanent employee, or probationer may be terminated and he may leave service after 14 days' notice. If such an employee leaves service without giving such notice he shall be liable for a week's pay (including all allowances ). (5) An order relating to discharge or termination of service shall be in writing and shall be signed by the manager. A copy of such order shall be supplied to the employee concerned. (6) In cases of contemplated closing down or of retrenchment of more than five employees, the following procedure shall be observed; (a) two month's notice of such proposed action shall be given individually to all the employees concerned, with a statement of the reasons for such proposed action; (b) the manager or an officer empowered in this behalf shall within the period of such notice hear any representation from the employees concerned or any registered union of the bank employees; (c) after the hearing of such representation and the receipt of a report in the matter, if necessary, by the management, if it decides to give effect to the contemplated closing down or retrenchment in the original or an amended form the services of the employees may be terminated by giving notice or payment, in lieu thereof for the periods prescribed above. " Learned counsel for the appellants has cited Mukherjee (K. M.) Vs. State Bank of India (3), S. Palani Vs. Indian Bank (4), Kishan Dev Puri Vs. Union of India (5), and P. Mallaiah Etc. vs. Andhra Bank (6) in support of his contention. What was held in the cases relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the enforcement of the award like one Shastri Award is not permissible and in such matter Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be invoked. The order Anx. 1 has been passed in terms of Paragraph 522 of the Shastri Award, which provides that in a case not involving disciplinary action and subject to clause (6) the employment of the permanent employee may be terminated by three months' notice or on payment of three month's pay and allowances in lieu of notice. ;