SPECIAL OFFICER OMALUR TALUK CO OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal has been filed by the Special Officer, Omalur Taluk Co-operative Society, against the order of the learned single Judge dated 7. 3. 2002 in W. P. No: 1776 of 1997 dismissing the writ petition challenging the award passed in I. D. No. 541 of 1992 dated 5. 1. 1996. The second respondent is the employee in question.

(2.) THE brief facts required for the purpose of disposal of the writ appeal are as follows :- The second respondent was appointed as a typist on 22. 11. 1990 and was terminated from service abruptly on 31st October 1991 without assigning any reasons. The 2nd respondent having put in 240 days of service in twelve continuous calendar months filed a petition under Section 2 (A) (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the I. D. Act, in I. D. No: 353 of 1992 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore, for reinstatement in service with full backwages, continuity of service and for other reliefs. The said I. D. was transferred to the Labour Court, Salem, and renumbered as I. D. No: 541 of 1992. The main contention raised on behalf of the second respondent employee is that his termination is in violation of Section 25 F of the I. D. Act and that the termination order did not state the nature of irregularity in the appointment.

(3.) THE appellant management disputed the claim of the employee stating that the second respondent was employed on daily wage basis on 22. 11. 1990. He was not employed through employment exchange. Subsequently, his appointment was made on temporary basis on 6. 2. 1991. The name of the employee was notified through employment exchange on 4. 3. 1991 and he was called for interview once again on 2. 5. 1991. The selection was made on 16. 5. 1991 and put on probation for a period of one year on consolidated salary. On 9. 7. 1991 at the request of the second respondent, he was appointed on regular scale of pay at Rs. 1,106/- by proceeding dated 10. 7. 1991. The said appointment was found to be irregular and therefore, he was terminated by the Special Officer by proceedings dated 31. 10. 1991, which is the subject matter of the challenge by way of present appeal. The conciliation having failed, the second respondent employee approached the Labour Court which culminated in the passing of the award, which was challenged in the writ petition. One of the contentions on behalf of the appellant before the Labour Court was that at the time when the second respondent was appointed, he had already crossed the age of 30 years and therefore, in terms of Clause IV of Special Bye-laws of the Bank and also under Rule 149 (4) of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules 1988, the second respondent could not have been appointed.