PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPORATION LIMITED CHANDIGARH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AMRAVATI REGIONAL MANAGER WEST ZONE NOW KNOWN AS KANPUR REGION BANK OF BARODA REGIONAL OFFICE LUCKNOW Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH:CHANDRASHEKHAR MARIBHAU DESHMUKH :SECRETARY U P BANK EMPLOYEES UNION C O BANK OF BARODA LATOUCHE ROAD KANPUR :LABOUR COURT RANCHI:NAMDEO:SECRETA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This analogous cluster of seventeen appeals by special leave, and a special leave petition involves a common question of law though they arise out of the following respective facts: C. A. Nos. 3241-3248 of 1981 These eight appeals by the Land Development and Reclamation Corporation, Chandigarh are from the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High court dismissing its writ petitions challenging the award dated 2/08/1980 of the Labour court, Chandigarh holding that the respondents were entitled to reinstatement with back wages except Yaspal (C. A. No. 3242 of 1981 who was to get wages up to 10/10/1978, with benefits of continuity of service. The respondents were workmen under the management of the Corporation and their services were terminated on the ground that the Chairman had no power to appoint them. The Labour court in its award held that their services were terminated illegally without payment of retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', and that they were entitled to reinstatement.

(2.) This appeal is from the judgment dated 9/11/1981 of the High court of Bombay (Nagpur bench). The first respondent was anemployee of the appellants corporation since 1972. He was taken on probation in 1975 for one year which was extended from time to time, lastly from 1/09/197 7/10/1977, whereafter his services being not found satisfactory were terminated with effect from 1/11/1977 under Regulation 44 (b) of the State Transport Employees Service Regulations of the Corporation. The Labour court took the view that it amounted to retrenchment and the provisions of S. 25-F of the Act having not been complied with the termination was illegal. The appellants writ petition therefrom was dismissed.

(3.) The respondent workman was employed by the appellant Bank on 3/10/1962 as a clerk and he was put on probation for six months. As allegedly there was total lack of confidence of the bank in the employee it terminated his service on 27/07/1974 on payment of three months salary. The Industrial tribunal by its award dated 3/12/1981 directed reinstatement of the workman with full back wages on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The employer Bank now appeals from that award.