RAMESH PRASAD Vs. REGISTRAR CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed on dally wage basis as peon by the Co-operative Society for a limited period. He has worked for more than 240 days with artificial break. Subsequently the petitioner is permitted to work but the payment of his salary was stopped. Therefore, the petitioner had moved this writ petition seeking a relief directing the respondents not to interfere in the working of the petitioner as well as his salary be paid regularly including the arrears.

(2.) Sri K. K. Trtpathi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since the petitioner was allowed to continue and had completed more than 240 days work, he is entitled to be regularised. His next contention is that his services could not be terminated in violation of Regulation 29 of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 read with Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act and, therefore, the alleged termination of his service is bad in law and cannot be sustained,

(3.) Sri A. Kumar. assisted by Sri O. P. Slngh, learned counsel for the respondents Society, on the other hand contends that under Regulation 5 Society did not have any authority to appoint any person without the approval of the Board or consultation with the Board. He further contends that the Society may appoint any person without consulting the Board but such appointment would be for a period of six months and his next contention is that since the petitioner was appointed for limited period and after the expiry of the said limited period. the petitioner cannot continue, and as such the petitioner has no legal right to continue. Since the petitioner was appointed on daily wage basis, there was no scope for application of Regulation 29 since he was not an employee of the Society. It comes into play only when a person is appointed within the meaning of Regulation 5. Unless Regulation 5 applies there is no scope for application of Regulation 29 read with Section 6 (N). If Regulation 29 is not applicable, there can not be any scope of application of Section 6 (N) of the Industrial Dispute Act.