KARTAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Kartar Singh was appointed as Glerk in the service of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'the HUDA') vide order dated July 13, 1982 (Annexure R-2/1) issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA. He was placed on probation for a period of two years, vide letter dated July 15, 1983 (Annexure R-2/2), adverse remarks in the annual confidential report for the year 1982-83 (August 5, 1982 to March 31, 1983) were conveyed to the petitioner and he was called upon to improve. Once again, vide letter dated May 29, 1984 (Annexure R-2/4), adverse remarks in the annual confidential report for the year 1983-84 were conveyed to the petitioner. This time again he was called upon to improve. Ultimately, the employer terminated his service vide letter dated September 26, 1984 (Annexure P-3 ). This action of the employer became the subject matter of an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Ambala. After considering the rival cases, the Labour Court passed the award dated August 16, 1993 (Annexure P-1) and held that termination of service of the workman did not amount to retrenchment and he was not entitled to reinstatement etc.

(2.) THE first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the order of appointment the employer was under a duty to give one month's notice to the petitioner before terminating his service and as no such notice was given to the petitioner, the termination of his service is liable to be declared as void. Learned counsel argued that the Labour Court has committed a patent illegality in over-looking condition No. 7 of the letter of appointment issued by the Chief Administrator of HUDA. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 argued that petitioner's service has been terminated according to the terms and conditions incorporated in the contract of employment, and, therefore, the impugned action of the employer terminating the service of the petitioner does not suffer from any legal error.

(3.) CONDITION Nos. 6 and 7 of the letter of appointment of the petitioner read as under:-