ZAKIR HUSAIN MUNSHI KHAN Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Counsel. The short submission which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days of service and his services were brought to an end without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the 'act'. The requisite averments have been made in para 9 of the petition. There is no denial to this factual submissions made by the petitioner.

(2.) SO far as this Court is concerned, it is settled law that interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution and order of reinstatement can be passed in writ jurisdiction if there is non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act. Reference in this regard be made to the decision reported in Mahesh Bhargava v. State (1994-I-LLJ-1113) (MP ). In view of the above Division Bench judgment, the contention of the petitioner as to whether he is entitled to reinstatement or not is being examined under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) THE view is again well settled that in case there is non- compliance of Section 25-F of the Act, then the termination is bad. The first decision and the latest decision in this regard be noticed. (i) State Bank of India v. N. Sunder Money (1976-I-LLJ-478) (SC) and (ii) Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Ors. , (1990-II-LLJ-70xsc)