MANAGEMENT INDIAN INSTITUTE OF HORTICULTURAL RESEARCH ICAR BANGALORE Vs. K SHASHIKALA INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned award, the Central Government Industrial tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'tribunal' for short) allowed the reference in C. R. No. 10 of 2001 and set aside the order of termination passed by the Director General, Indian institute of Horticultural Research, Indian Council of Agricultural research ('icar') (hereinafter referred to as 'management' for short)and consequently, directed the 'management' to reinstate the workman-respondent herein to her original post which she was holding on the date of termination with full back wages and continuity of service.

(2.) THE records disclose that the workman-respondent was appointed to the post of T-6 (Technical Officer/librarian) on 17-3-1992 in the establishment of Indian Institute of Horticultural Research (ICAR) on a temporary basis. She was put on probation for a period of two years, which was extended from time to time. Ultimately, her services were terminated by order dated 29-6-1996 under Rule 5 of the ICAR (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The workman-respondent raised industrial Dispute before the conciliation officer against the order of termination on various grounds. As the conciliation proceedings failed, the Central Government referred the matter to the Tribunal' for adjudication of the dispute. The dispute, which was referred to the 'tribunal', is as under: "whether the action of the 'management' of Indian Institute of horticultural Research, Bangalore in terminating the services of smt. K. Shashikala, Ex-Librarian (T-6) is legal and justified? If not, to what relief Smt. K. Shashikala is entitled?"

(3.) THE workman examined herself as M. W. 1 and got marked 9 documents in support of her case. On behalf of the 'management', an assistant working in the Administrative Department of the establishment of 'management' was examined as M. W. 1 and 9 documents were got marked. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing, the tribunal set aside the order of termination and directed the 'management' to reinstate the workman to her original post, which she was holding on the date of termination.