RAMLAL Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions of law arise in this Letters Patent Appeal:

(2.) A broad brush of factual backdrop will help in resolving the forensic controversy.

(3.) RAM Lal, appellant, was appointed as Land Evaluation Officer by the Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage. Bank Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter called "the Bank"), on 9th November, 1968, on regular basis. In April, 1972, he was sent on deputation to the Bhatinda Primary Co-operative Land Mortgage Bank Limited at Bhatinda. The appellant became a member of the union of the employees of the bank. He was implicated in a case of corruption and was suspended on 11th August, 1972. He was also arraigned and tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhatinda. There was no evidence against the petitioner and he was discharged by the learned Magistrate on 8th February, 1973. . However, in the meantime, the Chairman of the Bank terminated the services of the appellant on 10th November, 1972, while he was still working at Bhatinda. The appellant sent a registered demand notice to the Chairman of the Bank on 15th November, 1972, against the order of termination of his services as required by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act" ). Since no action was taken on the demand notice, the Land Mortgage 3ank Employees' Union sponsored the appellant's cause and the General Secretary of the Union wrote to the Conciliation Officer and requested that conciliation proceedings in the case be initiated as the employer had refused to accede to the demand of the workman. While the conciliation proceedings were going on, the appellant received a letter from the Labour Commissioner, Punjab, wherein the appellant was informed that since the demand notice was served on the Chairman of the Bank and it was not his employer the appellant's case cannot be considered under the Act. On a further representation by the appellant, he was informed that the Punjab Government was not the appropriate Government in respect of his case and cannot take any action in the matter. Thereafter, the appellant's case was referred to the Home Secretary of Chandigarh Administration, who, vide orders dated 23rd May, 1974, declined to refer the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. Against this order the appellant filed C. W. P. No. 3835 of 1974, which was dismissed by a Division Bench in limine. The appellant filed a civil suit on 14th May, 1975, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, III Class, Bhatinda, seeking a declaration that the appellant continued to be in service of the bank and the order terminating his services were illegal and void. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the orders dated 10th November, 1972, terminating the services of the plaintiff was illegal, void and was not binding on the plaintiff. He, however, relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi 1975-I L. L. J. 399 held that the plaintiffs suit was not maintainable against the bank, because it was neither a Department of the Government, nor was a statutory body whose employees have statutory status.