MANAGEMENT S D HIGH SCHOOL FOR BOYS, NABHA, DISTRICT PATIALA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT, PATIALA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award in challenge by the management is a direction for reinstatement with continuity of service while still not allowing claim of back wages to the workman. The dispute that stood referred to the Labour Court was an alleged illegal termination made by the management on a person, who had been appointed to a sanctioned post in a private school. The appointment order had been issued on 08.01.1996 and the order was read as to be in conformity with Punjab Private-Managed Recognized Schools Employees (Security of Service) Rules, 1981. The order stipulated that as per the rules, the incumbent would be on probation for one year and that if he did not complete his probation period successfully, his services would be terminated without serving him any notice. The contention of the workman was that he was continued till 07.01.1997 and he was not permitted to continue in employment. This according to the workman constituted illegal termination.

(2.) The Labour Court examined the issue from the point of view that it was a sanctioned post and the order of appointment must be understood as a regular appointment and the termination could not have been effected at all. The Labour Court reasoned that the management did not terminate the services of the worker because the respondent did not have the post but because the respondent found some weakness in him. It further stated that the fact that they employed the expression that the services were not extended, it meant that the post had not been abolished.

(3.) To say the least, the reasoning of the Labour Court is wholly erroneous and quite off the mark. The issue was never whether the post existed or not. The issue was whether the workman could complain that the service as having been terminated was in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is an admitted case that the appointment took place on an express order in a privately managed recognized school to which the provisions of the Punjab Privately-Managed Recognized Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979 applied. An attempted forceful contention of the learned counsel appearing for the workman was that the rules themselves did not apply for a non-teaching staff and that class IV employees would not be governed by the rules. The learned counsel would make reference to the appendix that sets out different classes of persons that were controlled by the Act and according to her, the particular class to which he had been appointed does not find express in the schedule. The contention regarding the non-applicability of the Act and the rules are again, in my view, wholly misplaced. The Principal Act of 1979 had been passed to provide for security of service to employees of privately managed recognized schools in the State of Punjab. Employee is defined under Section 2(c) as follows :