HARYANA BREWERIES LTD Vs. BHUPINDER DEV JALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by Haryana Breweries Limited challenging the judgment dated February 13, 1992, rendered by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition 12316 of 1989 that came to bt: filed by Bhupinder Dev Jain - respondent herein challenging termination of his service by -poking bye- law 3.2 of the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Employees Service Bye-Laws (for short 'Service Bye-Laws) by which services of a permanent employees could be terminated by giving three months' notice or in lieu thereof pay of three months. Learned Single Judge, dealing with the matter, allowed the writ petition but inasmuch as by the time the matter came to be decided, the respondent had superannuated, a direction was issued to the appellantjierein that the respondent should be paid full back wages with interest @ 12%-per annum from the date the amount fell due to the date when the payment was to be actually made for the peritxi of September 14, 1989 to April 30,1991. Inasmuch as the a ppellant had chosen to file the Letters Patent Appeal which was admitted for regular hearing on October 29, 1992, the retiral benefits of the respondent were with-held and it is with a view to secure the said benefits that Civil Writ Petition 1621 of 1993 came to be filed. Obviously, the face of C.W.P. 1621 of 1993 hinges upon the decision in L.P.A. and it is for that precise reason that both the matters were ordered to be listed for hearing together. This order shall, thus, dispose of L.P.A. 972 of 1992 and C.W.P. 1621 of 1993.

(2.) The admitted facts constraining the respondent to file Civil Writ Petition 12316 of 1989 reveal that he was appointed as Finance Controller-cum-Chief Accounts Officer with the appellant Corporation vide orders dated April 24, 1984 which post was redesignated as General Manager (Finance) and that the respondent had since been duly confirmed against the said post. He resigned from the post in December, 1986 but in March, 1989 he rejoined the same post and the appellant Corporation treated the period of absence as one of extra-ordinary leave. However, vide orders dated September 14,1989 his services were terminated by invoking bye-law 3.2 of the Service Bye-laws which reads as follows:-

(3.) The learned Single Judge dealing with the matter invalidated the order of termination by following the dictum of the Apex Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & Ann versus Brojo Nath Ganguly & Ann, 1986 AIR(SC) 1571 as also some other Judgments of the Supreme Court and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Bishnoi versus State of Haryana & Ors., 1989(4) SLR, 286.