REKHA CHANDER Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff-Appellant (for short 'the appellant') is in regular second appeal against the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below whereby the suit of the appellant was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant was appointed as Craft teacher on 89 days basis in the pay scale of Rs.1240-40-1320-45-1500- 50-2000-60-2000-70-2130 besides other allowances by the Chairman, Panchayat Samiti and after the expiry of said period of 89 days vide resolution, the period of service was extended for 89 days w.e.f 11.05.1995 and after the expiry of said period, she was again re-appointed on 89 days w.e.f 08.09.1995. She was paid wages upto 30.09.1995 and was informed by BDPO, acting as Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bamial that her services were being terminated, vide order dated 05.09.1995, under the directions of Under Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Department, Punjab Government, Chandigarh. After termination of her services, notice of demand was served under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the case was referred to the Labour Court, Gurdaspur for adjudication as to whether her services has been wrongly terminated. Thereafter, the Labour Court decided the case in favour of the appellant and she was held entitled to continue in service and 50% back wages. However, the department filed CWP No. 6209 of 1999 against the order passed by the Labour Court, which was allowed and it was held that appellant was not a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act. Thereafter, the appellant served a legal notice under Section 80 C.P.C on 19.02.2001 calling upon the respondent to treat the impugned order as null and void and to reinstate the service of the appellant with all service benefits. The appellant has now challenged the impugned order dated 17.11.1995 on the ground that the order was passed by the Executive Officer, who was neither the appointing nor disciplinary authority and no enquiry was conducted before passing the order and the said order was passed in violation of terms and conditions of the appointment. No charge sheet was issued and the post was a permanent and substantive one. On notice, the respondents filed their written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit of the appellant is not maintainable and barred by limitation and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as Panchayat Samiti has not been arrayed as party. On merits, it was pleaded that the appellant has put in service of 231 days only commutativity and the reasons for her termination was that her initial appointment was made against the rules and without the requisite approval of the Government and when the approval was sought, it was ordered that her services be terminated.

(3.) The appellant filed replication controverting the pleas taken by the respondents in their written statement After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, the instant appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves dismissal.