URAKAM SERVICE CO Vs. P. SUJATHA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a co-operative society. The first respondent was appointed purportedly in terms of rule 184 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, as a probationer. The order of appointment, which is exhibit P2, dated 9 May 1979, reads :

(2.) The last sentence of that order thus made it clear that the appointment was subject to the approval of the Deputy Registrar. It was, therefore, a conditional appointment. The society requested the Deputy Registrar for approval. Approval was declined under exhibit P3, dated 10 July 1979, which reads :

(3.) By reason of exhibit P3 the petitioner made exhibit P 4 order, dated 13 July 1979, terminating the services of the first respondent with effect from the date of that order. The industrial dispute which consequently arose was referred under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Denial of employment to Smt. P. Sujatha as attender was the issue referred for adjudication. The Labour Court found in Industrial Dispute No. 44 of 1981 that the termination was "bad and illegal" and the employee was entitled to be reinstated but without back-wages as the employee was profitably employed elsewhere during the relevant period.