HATAKISHORE SAHU Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was appointed by the management of the United Puri-Nimapara Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Puri (Opposite party No. 2) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Bank) as a Junior Supervisor on 10-5-63. He was posted as Assistant Junior Supervisor at Markandpur Service Cooperative Society on 18-8-65. He was suspended from duty on 14-8-70. A charge-sheet was served on him on 17-8-70. He submitted his explanation denying the charges on 26-8-70. He was dismissed from service by an order (Annexure 1) on 21-10-70 with a direction that the dismissal order would be effective retrospectively from 14-8-70. The order of dismissal was passed without any enquiry being held by the Bank. Petitioner raised an industrial dispute with regard to his illegal termination of service by filing a complaint on 231-71 before the District Labour Officer-cum-Conciliation Officer, Puri. The conciliation having failed the Conciliation Officer submitted his report of failure of conciliation to the State Government (opposite party No. 3) who on consideration of the failure report referred the dispute for adjudication by the Labour Court, (opposite party No. 1 ). The dispute referred was as follows: Whether removal from service of Sri Hatakishore Sahu, Assistant Junior Supervisor-cum-Secretary of Markandpur Service Co-operative Society by the management of the United Puri-Nimapara Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Puri with effect from 14-8-70 is legal and/or justified? If not to what relief he is entitled? The reference was registered in the file of the Labour Court as Industrial Dispute Case No. 14 of 1972. Though no domestic enquiry had been held by the Bank, evidence was led before the Labour Court by the management to justify the termination. By its award (Annexure 2) dated 11-3-74 opposite party No. 1 held that the termination was justified. It is to quash this order the writ application has been filed by Sri Hatakishore Sahu (petitioner) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(2.) MR. Nanda for the petitioner advanced the following contentions:

(3.) THE first contention is sound. It is now well-settled that an order of dismissal would be effective from the date when it is passed and it cannot have any retrospective operation. The Labour Court exercised its jurisdiction illegally in saying that the dismissal order, dated 21-1070 would be effective from 14-8-70 when the order of suspension was passed. It is also well-settled that this Court has got jurisdiction to legalese the matter by modifying the order of dismissal in saying that it would be effective from the date when it was passed. Thus the order of dismissal will be operative with effect from 21-10-70 and the petitioner would be entitled to arrears of wages from 14-8-70 to 2110-70.