KOODARANJI SERVICE COOP. BANK Vs. M. M. LISSY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is against Ext. P3 award of the Labour Court, Kozhikode, First respondent hag been appointed as Clerk on daily wages, and working under the petitioner for the past 6 years. The dispute related to the termination of her employment with effect from 1-4-1989. She was employed as Clerk in the service cooperative bank of the petitioner and was working continuously from 2-3-1983 to 1-4-1989. Her service was terminated on the basis of instruction issued by the superior authorities under Cooperative Societies Act. It is that termination which became the subject matter of Industrial Dispute No. 5/91, which was adjudicated by the third respondent culminating in the award dated 21-1-1992 produced in this Original Petition at Ext. P3.

(2.) On a perusal of Ext. P3, it is seen that it was an admitted case that the first respondent was working as a Clerk on daily wages from 2-3-1983 without any break. She was paid daily wages at Rs. 10/- initially, which was increased to Rs. 15/- for sometime and thereafter to Rs. 201/- until her appointment was terminated on 1-4-1989. Admittedly, she had continuous service of 6 years. It is also stated that the service of the first respondent is terminated only because the Cooperative Department has deprecated the appointment of persons on daily wages in cooperative banks and directed to dispense with their service. Termination was done without complying with the provisions of S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. Admittedly, Industrial Disputes Act will be applicable in this case. First respondent was in continuous service for nearly about 6 years. Such employment cannot be terminated without complying with the provisions of S.25F, which has not been done in this case. The effect of the termination order is, therefore, rightly held by the Labour Court as non est, Since provisions under S.25F has not been complied with, the termination will have no effect and in law, she will be deemed to be in service. It is on that basis award is passed directing the management to reinstate the worker as a Clerk with back wages and to continue her services.

(3.) Petitioner referred to the decision reported under Eranalloor Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Labour Court ( 1986 KLT 801 ). In that case, the employee was appointed without the necessary qualification and contrary to the provision of S.80 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act. It is on that ground the appointment was held to be void by this Court and, therefore it will not spell in the realm of retrenchment attracting the provision of S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. That decision has no application in this case as there is no case that the first respondent in this case was not qualified to be appointed as a clerk. Counsel also referred to the decision reported in Urakam Service Cooperative Society v. Sujatha ( 1988 (2) KLT SN 25 p. 15). In that case the society was directed to terminate the services of an employee by the Deputy Registrar as the appointment was made in violation of the rules. The Labour Court found that the termination of the employee was bad and illegal and that he was entitled to be reinstated The correctness or authority of the Registrar's order was not in challenge before any forum. The society had not challenged the action of the Registrar under R.188. The employee never questioned the Registrar's act before any competent forum. In those circumstances, the Court held that it must be assumed that what the public officer did in exercise of his statutory power was valid and proper.