THE SPECIAL OFFICER, OMALUR TALUK CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD., OMALUR, SALEM DISTRICT Vs. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT, SALEM AND K. VARADARAJAN, OMALUR, SALEM DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Special Officer, Omalur Taluk Co -operative Land Development Bank Limited. The writ petition has been filed challenging the award passed by the first respondent / the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem dated 05.01.1996 passed in I.D.No.541 of 1992. By the said award, the first respondent / Labour Court held that the termination of service of the second respondent was illegal and consequently directed the petitioner to reinstate him into service with continuity of service.

(2.) The second respondent filed a petition under Sec. 2(A)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "I.D.Act") in I.D.No.353 of 1992 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore for a direction to pass an order, directing the management to reinstate the petitioner in service with full backwages, continuity of service etc., and with all attendant benefits accrued thereon. The said I.D. was transferred to Labour Court, Salem and was taken on file in I.D.No.541 of 1992. In the said petition, it was alleged that the second respondent was appointed as Typist in the petitioner / society with effect from 22.11.1990 and was terminated abruptly on 31.10.1991, without assigning any reason, without any charge sheet issued and without holding any enquiry. The second respondent had also put in more than 240 days of service in 12 continuous calendar months. Hence, the termination of the second respondent is violative of Sec. 25F of "I.D.Act".

(3.) The petitioner disputed the said claim of the second respondent by filing counter, wherein it is stated that originally the second respondent was appointed as Typist on 22.11.1990 on daily wages of Rs.25/ -. He was not employed through Employment Exchange. However, he was appointed on consolidated salary purely on temporary basis on 06.02.1991. The name of the petitioner was notified through employment exchange on 04.03.1991 and on 02.05.1991, he was called for interview. He was selected on 16.05.1991 and put on probation for a period of one year on consolidated salary. On 09.07.1991, the second respondent gave requisition to the management to put him on basic plus D.A scale and the same was granted on 10.07.1991 by the then President of the petitioner / Society. However, when the elected Board was superceded and the Special Officer took charge of the Society, he came to know that the appointment of the second respondent was irregular and therefore, terminated the petitioner from service on 31.10.1991. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner did not put in 240 days in 12 continuous calendar months. Additional counter affidavit was also filed by the petitioner / Society in the said I.D., wherein it is stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.09.1960 as per the Transfer Certificate and the second respondent had crossed the age of 30 years when the first appointment itself was made. As per clause 4 of Special byelaws relating to service conditions of the Bank and Rule 149(4) of the Tamil Nadu Co -operative Societies Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), no person should be appointed to the post in the Bank, if he has on the date of his assuming charge has attained the age of 30 years. Hence, the appointment was irregular and therefore, the second respondent was terminated from service.