JAGRUTIBEN VRAJLAL MODI Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 29.10.2005 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Gujarat in Appeal (I.C.) No. 36 of 2004 whereby the appeal of the respondent came to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.10.2004 passed by the Labour Court, Kalol in T. Application No. 4 of 1998.

(2.) Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had completed the probation period and continuously working for 15 months. Therefore, service of petitioner cannot be terminated and there is breach of section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He further contended that no procedure is followed by the respondent-Bank before terminating the services of the petitioner on 1.1.1998. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Syed Azam Hussaini v. Andhra Bank Ltd., 1995 70 FLR 827 , wherein it is held that that termination of a probationer before expiry of extended probation period without showing any reasonable cause amounts to retrenchment.

(3.) Learned advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that admittedly the petitioner is the daughter of Vrajlal Modi and he is representing signatory in the appointment order. Therefore, the same is contrary to bylaws of sections 39 and 40 wherein it is stipulated that Managing Director or Manager of the Board will note down the resolution. The presence of the members in the meeting and its work will also be marked. It is open for inquiry of any membership/member of the Board. When there is any interest of Director, the Director will not participate in the proceedings and he cannot vote for the same. Therefore, the appointment order is bad in law and from the document it was is proved that father of the petitioner has signed the appointment order which is illegal. In that view of the matter, contention raised that there is breach of section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is contrary to law is misconceived. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. At the outset it is required to be noted that the petitioner is the daughter of the chairman of the respondent-bank. There was no agenda in the meeting and the Chairman has taken up the issue and resolution was passed accordingly. He has also signed the minutes. It is also found that there was no sanctioned set up so as to fill up the post given to the respondent. As a matter of fact if the issue of appointment of petitioner is taken up being her father the Chairman should have been opted out of the meeting. On the contrary the issue was taken up at his instance which shows that the appointment was not a regular one. Apart from that there was no sanctioned set up also. It is nothing but misuse of the position and such appointment is illegal. On the facts of the case Bye-laws No. 39 and 40 are rightly interpreted by the Court. I am therefore of the view that the view taken by the Industrial Court is just and proper. Since the appointment of the petitioner and entry of the petitioner in service itself is illegal, the decision in case of Anoop Sharma , invited by the learned advocate for the petitioner does not apply to the present case.