JASWINDER SINGH PASSI Vs. REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS were selected for the post of Junior Clerks by the respondents-Banks on February 15, 1980. The appointment was on probation for a period of one year. After about 1 1/2 months, the services of the petitioners were terminated as a result of the decision given by this Court on March 21, 1980. Petitioners were junior -most and as such their services were terminated being surplus. Petitioners were re-employed subsequently after a month or so, but again their services were terminated. Petitioners filed their representation that 4. 6 posts of Junior Clerks were lying vacant and the vacancies which were lying vacant, ought to have been offered to them in terms of Section 25h of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) In spite of all that, petitioners were not re-employed and aggrieved against that, petitioners filed a civil suit on July 26, 1983 which was decided on July 30, 1984 by Senior Subordinate Judge, Rup Nagar. The suit was ordered to be dismissed being not maintainable, but while deciding issue No. 1 which was in the following terms:- (1) Whether the order passed by respondent No. 1 retrenching the plaintiffs is illegal and unlawful for the reasons mentioned in para No. 15 of the plaint? OPP it was observed by the trial Court in Paras No. 9 and 10 of its judgment as follows: -

(2.) PETITIONERS had also represented to the Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Punjab, who had also conveyed his sanction for filling up four posts of the Junior Clerks in the Bank with the direction that the cases of the retrenched employees be considered. Copy of the said communication has been placed on record as Annexure P-2. Yet in another communication (Annexure P- 3) the Registrar, Co-operative Societies had further written to the respondents-Bank to comply with the direction of offering four vacant posts of Junior Clerks to the petitioners. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition on the allegation that in spite of the observation made by the Civil Court in its judgement dated July 30, 1984 under issue No. 1 and the subsequent letter written by the Registrar, Annexures P-2 and P-3 the respondent-Bank has not offered any employment to the petitioners in terms of Section 25h of the Act.

(3.) RESPONDENT-BANK has filed its written statement but at the time of arguments, this Court directed the respondents to file an additional affidavit clarifying the position as to how many persons had been employed by the bank after the termination of services of the petitioner. In obedience to the directions given by this Court, respondent-Bank has filed an additional affidavit dated May 5, 1991 which is ordered to be placed on record. A perusal of this record would show that the respondents have employed Smt. Sudershan Kaur, Sishpal Singh, Avtar Singh, Paramjit Kaur and Harsvardhan Sarin after termination of services of the petitioners without complying with the directions of Section 25h of the Act. The plea taken by the Bank is that the persons mentioned above were initially appointed on ad hoc basis/daily wages and later on their services were regularised on various dates. No reasons have been given by the respondent-Bank in its reply for not offering the appointments to the petitioners at the first instance. It has been observed in a Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana, 1983 (1) SLR 38, that a retrenched workman cannot seek reinstatement with back wages,but Section 25h of the Act nevertheless does accord a preferential treatment for re-employment if after retrenchment a vacancy of similar or comparable post occurs. Paragraph 37 of the said report is reproduced below (at Page 52 of 1983 (1) Serv LR):-