NAGAR PALIKA DEHRADUN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. K. Jain, J. This petition has been filed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the award dated 3-6- 1989 published in the Notice Board on 24-7-1989 (Annexure V) passed by the Ex ecutive Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are that Respondent No. 3 Parmanand was ap pointed as a Beldar on probation for a period of one year on the recommenda tion of the Engineer of Municipal Board, Dehradun. Later on, it was discovered that Respondent No. 3 was related to the En gineer of Municipal Board, Dehradun and his brother was also already in service of Nagar Palika. Since his work was not found to be satisfactory, as such his service was terminated on 31-10-1987. THE Respondent No. 3 raised the dispute before the State Government of U. P. Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 1 made a reference to Labour Court, Respondent No. 2 to determine whether the service of Respondent No. 3 on the post of Beldar was illegally or rightly ter minated by the employer on 31-10-1987. THE Respondent No. 3 had filed the writ ten statement alleging that his appoint ment on the post of Beldar was permanent and his work was satisfactory throughout. It was further alleged that the impugned order of termination of his service is whol ly illegal and against the principles of natural justice. It was also alleged that Respondent No. 3 had worked for more than 240 days continuously and as such the order of termination is illegal. THE petitioner contested the aforesaid refer ence filed before the Labour Court on the ground that the appointment of Respon dent No. 3 was illegal and also that his work had been found unsatisfactory and as such his services were terminated. THE petitioner had denied that the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 are ap plicable and it is claimed that the Respon dent No. 3 is not a workman. It is also alleged that the Respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the present refer ence and the award dated 3-6-1989 passed by the Labour Court, holding that the order dated 31- 10-1987 is illegal and directing for reinstatement of Respondent No. 3, is wholly illegal and without juris diction.

(3.) IN the instant case, the main grievance of the Respondent No. 3 before the Labour Court was that the order of termination of his service was passed in violation of Section 25-Fof INdustrial Dis putes Act. IN view of the ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above, it ap pears that the contention of the Respon dent No. 3 has no force. He was appointed as Beldar in Municipal Board on 16-12-1986 on probation for a period of one year. Since his work was not found satisfactory as such his service was terminated on 31-10-1987. Obviously, the service of Respon dent No. 3 was terminated by the employer within one year of his employment by Municipal Board, Dehradun. The Respondent No. 3 was appointed in ser vice on probation for a period of one year on 16-12-1986 and his service was ter minated within one year of the employ ment on 31-10-1987 in accordance with the service conditions provided. IN the present case, it is found that since the procedure relating to the appointment and termination of Municipal Board's employees has been provided under the Municipal Boards Servants (INquiry, Punishment and Termination of Service) Rules as such the provisions of INdustrial Disputes Act, are not attracted and the impugned award is without jurisdiction. The Respondent No. 3 was appointed in accordance with the Services Rules of Municipal Board and his service was ter minated in accordance with the statutory rules. That being so, the disengagement of Respondent No. 3 from his service cannot be construed to be a retrenchment under the INdustrial Disputes Act. It may be pointed out there that the operation of the award in question was stayed by this Court on 14-2-1990. It would thus appear that the Respondent No. 3 is out of employ ment for over 9 years.