M P ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners are seeking direction by issue of appropriate writ for quashing Annexures F and H which are the decisions of the Labour Court, Indore dated February 17, 1990 and the Industrial Court M. P. Indore dated November 23, 1990.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 3 was appointed in the petitioner Board as office Assistant Grade III (training) on probation. At the time of entering into the service, the respondent No. 3 had entered into an agreement with the petitioner Board.

(3.) IN compliance of the appointment order, the respondent No. 3 joined his duties on December 22, 1984. After completion of 6 months probationary period, the Board had taken an appraisal test. The respondent No. 3 could not qualify in the aforesaid test and his probationary period was extended for a further period of 6 months. Again an appraisal test was organised by the Board and in the subsequent test too the respondent No. 3 could not qualify and hence by the order dated March 10, 1986 his services had come to an end on the basis of the condition stipulated in the appointment order. Against this order, the respondent No. 3 filed an application under Section 31 (1) of the M. P. I. R. Act before the Labour Court contending inter alia that he had served the petitioner for more than a period of 240 days and hence his termination is a retrenchment under the provisions of Section 25-F and the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act were not complied. The relief of reinstatement with back wages was claimed. By order dated February 17, 1990, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Indore allowed the application. An order of reinstatement was passed with back wages. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by the Board before the Industrial Court and by order dated November 13, 1990 the Industrial Court dismissed the appeal and the judgment of the Labour Court was upheld, against which the petitioner Board has filed this petition. The submission of the petitioner in this written petition is that the orders of the Courts below are contrary to the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act and, therefore, in view of the aforesaid provisions, the decision of both the Courts below are contrary to law, void ab initio and without jurisdiction.