ZILA SAHKARI BANK LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Jhansi has filed this writ petition against the Labour Court dated 31-7-1989 whereby it has directed that Munna Lal Vyas, an employee in the said Bank should be reinstated with full back wages. At the admission stage the respondent Munna Lal Vyas was present to oppose the writ petition as a result of which an opportunity to him to file an affidavit was granted. A reply in the shape of rejoinder-affidavit has come from the petitioner and, as such, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.

(2.) The fact lie in a narrow compass. It is admitted that the petitioner is a co-operative society being governed by the provisions contained in the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, hereinafter referred to as the Act, I.D. is also not in dispute that in view of the provisions contained in Sections 121 read with Section 122 of the Act. Regulations for various employees in the Co-operative Societies could be framed and have infact know as U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees' Service Regulations, 1975, hereinafter referred to as the Regulations. It is also not in dispute that the State Government has made a reference to the Labour Court in view of Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act. It was stated in the reference as to what relief, if any, would be granted to the respondent if the termination of the employment of the respondent on 28-6-1985 is found or held illegal. The initial appointment of the respondent was made by the society on 9-1-1984 for a period of three months which was extended till 11-4-1984 only. There ensued a break in his employment because the second term of employment of the petitioner allegedly began admittedly on 14-4-1984 and ended on 9-11-1984. The third break began on 12-1 l-l984 and saw its end on 17-1-1985. The fourth term came to an end on 28-6-1985 giving rise to the aforesaid reference before the Labour Court.

(3.) Sri A. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Award of Labour Court in holding the aforesaid terms as a consolidated one so as to give benefit of Section 25-N of the I.D. Act is illegal inasmuch as the initial appointment was a 'term appointment'. It was, therefore, argued that this case has been wrongly treated to be a case of retrenchment and, as such, no relief should have been granted to the respondent and, therefore, the writ petition should be allowed and the Award dated 31-7-1989 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) should be quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari. Certain provisions contained in various enactments and Regulations as referred to above, have been referred.