VIKRAMADITYA PANDEY Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 9-5-1996 made by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 14 of 1989 (reported in 1997 Lab IC 604).

(2.) The appellant was employed on 4-12-1981 as a clerk on ad hoc basis by respondent No. 2 - U.P. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. (for short 'the Bank'). He was serving as such till 19-7-1985 continuously with small motivated breaks in between to ensure that the appellant did not have continuous service of more than 89 days. His services were terminated by an oral order dated 19-7-1985. He raised an industrial dispute challenging termination of his services. Respondent No. 1 - Industrial Tribunal - after holding inquiry and on the basis of the evidence held that termination of the services of the appellant was clearly "retrenchment" as defined in Section 2(S) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was also contrary to Section 6(N) of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Act'). The Tribunal refused to grant relief of reinstatement on the ground that the regular appointment to the post held by the appellant could only be made by the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board as per U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (for short 'the Regulations') and as such he could not be reinstated in service as a regular employee. However, the Tribunal granted benefits of retrenchment with 12% interest for the relevant period. Since the Tribunal denied the relief of reinstatement and full back wages the appellant filed the writ petition aggrieved by that part of the order of the Tribunal. It may be stated here itself that the respondent No. 2 did not challenge the Award of the Tribunal.

(3.) The High Court concurred with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that it was a case of retrenchment but was of the opinion that no interference was called for with the Award passed by the Tribunal having regard to Regulations 5 and 103. In the view it took the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the aggrieved appellant is before us in this appeal.