HARI KRISHNA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ROHTAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of two writ petitions. CWP 862 and CWP 863 of 1989 filed by Hari Krishan and Ranjit Singh respectively as they arise out of the same award dated 5/02/1988 (Annexure P-7) passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak. The petitioners in their respective petitions assail the award dated 5/02/1988 (Annexure P-7) passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak, whereby the learned Labour Court answered the reference against the aforesaid petitioners.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioners Hari Krishan and Ranjit were appointed as Clerks vide order dated 13/06/1979 and J 4/06/1979 respectively by the Hisar District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Hisar through its Manager respondent. No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent- Bank). As per the appointment letters Annexure P-l (in each case) of the respective petitioners their appointment was on ad hoc basis for six months or till the regular recruitment was made whichever was earlier subject to the approval of the Board of Directors. It is also recited in the appointment letters that their services were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. The petitioners services were regularised vide order dated 24/07/1979 (Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the services of the petitioners were terminated and they stood relieved from service vide order dated 10/12/1979 (Annexure P-3) on the ground that the same were no longer required and hence dispensed with. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute and assailed the said order dated 10/12/1979 (Annexure P-3) before the Labour Court. The Labour Court, as already noticed above, vide its impugned award dated 5/02/1988 (Annexure P-7) answered the reference against the petitioners holding that their termination was justified and in order and they were not liable to be reinstated in service. Hence, the present petitions to assail the award dated 5/02/1988 of the Labour Court.

(3.) In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank, it was submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Clerks by an authority not competent to appoint them under the Haryana State Central Co-operative Bank Staff (Common Cadre) Rules. 1975 (for short the Common Cadre Rules). According to Rule 9.4. of the said Common Cadre Rules, all direct recruitment were to be made after prior advertisement in one daily leading newspaper. Thus the appointments were made against the Rules and Instructions issued by the Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Haryana. It is further averred that in review of the matter, the competent authority i. e. the Board of Directors in the meeting, decided to dispense with the services of the petitioners.