P. KUMARESAN Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, VELLORE AND THE MANAGEMENT PARAYAMPATTY PUDHUR PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK PARAYAPATTY PUDHUR POST HARUR TALUK DHARMAPURI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was appointed as a salesman in the Fertilizer Shop of the 2nd respondent on 4.1.1991 on a monthly salary of Rs.380/=, as per the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of the 2nd respondent on 4.1.1991. It is the case of the petitioner that he has been discharging his duties sincerely and faithfully. The second respondent Bank was, at that time, managed and administered by the Board of Directors. Later on the Board was dissolved and a Special Officer was appointed in its place. The petitioner was appointed by the Board of Directors and he continued to remain in service even after the take over of the administration by the Special Officer. It is stated that on 30.8.1991 when the petitioner reported for duty, he was informed that his services were no longer required and he was restrained from signing the attendance register, as his service was terminated and also served with an order of termination dated 30.8.1991. The petitioner submitted that no charge was framed and no notice or compensation was given to him. Hence, the petitioner questioned the order of termination by raising a dispute under Sec. 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act and filed a petition in I.D.No.362 of 1992 before the Labour Court, Vellore. The Labour Court found that his appointment was irregular and liable to be set aside and according it was set aside and the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed this petition for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to send for the award in I.D.No.362 of 1992 on the file of the Labour Court, Vellore dated 15.6.1995 and to quash the same.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that he was appointed as a salesman and his appointment was legal and he was also allowed to work from 4.1.1991 to 30.8.1991. Though the appointment was made by the Board of Directors, even after the dissolution of the Board of Directors, the Special Officer appointed under the Act, allowed the petitioner to continue in service and he served up to 30.8.1991. It is further submitted that he has put up service of 231 days and that therefore his appointment has got to be regularised. It is further submitted that, no charges were framed against him before terminating him from service.

(3.) There is no pale of controversy that the petitioner was appointed by the Board of Directors on 4.1.1991. But however it is contended on behalf of the 2nd respondent that his appointment was not legal and the same was in violation of the bye -laws. It is submitted that under