SEHKARI UPBHOKTA WHOLESALE BHANDAR LTD Vs. PANNALAL BORDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NON-PETITIONER No. 1, Pannalal, was employed as a salesman on temporary basis on 4th September, 1979, on daily wages of Rs. 10 and was posted at the Ghee Selling Booth, No. 2, vide order annexure 1. It appears that some shortage in the stock of "ghee" was found and a notice was given to non-petitioner No. 1 on 29th September, 1980, for depositing the amount of Rs. 6,813 on account of that shortage along with 15% interest. Later, however, the petitioner, Sehkari Upbhokta Wholesale Bhandar Limited, Bikaner, had to close down the department of purchase and sale of "ghee" on account of recurring losses and on account of that closure, the services of non-petitioner, Pannalal, were terminated by notice dated 11th December, 1980, on the expiry of a month from the date of service of this notice. Non-petitioner, Pannalal, thereupon, raised an industrial dispute, which was, ultimately, referred to the Labour Court by the State Government. Further notice was issued in the meantime to non-petitioner, Pannalal, on 29th August, 1980, that the amount of Rs. 6,813 due against him on account of shortage of the stock of "ghee", was adjusted against the salary due to him for the period 1st January, 1980, to 31st August, 1980, amounting to Rs. 2,179. 75 and the balance of Rs. 4,633. 25 remained outstanding against him.

(2.) ON the reference being made by the State Government to the Labour Court, non-petitioner No. 1 Pannalal, filed his claim for declaring the termination of his services as invalid and for his reinstatement and recovery of back wages and a declaration for his services to continue. The petitioner filed a reply to the claim denying the same. On enquiry, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination order dated 12th January, 1981, was invalid and non-petitioner, Pannalal, be reinstated on the post on which he was working prior to his termination. It also awarded back wages from 12th January, 1981, till reinstatement at the rate of Rs. 10 per day. It is against this order of the Labour Court, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 10, that the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the order is wrong and illegal and is void. It is contended that the termination was valid as the department of purchase and sale of "ghee" had been closed and such termination does not amount to retrenchment, It is further alleged that since non-petitioner No. 1 was responsible for the loss of stock of "ghee" worth Rs. 6,813, he had forfeited the confidence of the employer and, therefore, he was not entitled to reinstatement or recovery of back wages. It is also contended that another notice had been served on the non-petitioner terminating his services with effect from 31st August, 1981, and in lieu of one month's notice, he had been paid one month's salary and also compensation. In view of this latter valid order of termination of service, the first order, which was void, automatically comes to an end and, now the non-petitioner cannot claim any relief either under Section 25f or the reinstatement and back wages. This plea had, of course, not been raised in the original writ petition itself, but has been taken by filing additional affidavit along with the copy of the notice dated 29th August, 1981. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner, on the other hand, has urged that the learned Labour Court has rightly found the termination of the services of non-petitioner No. 1 to be invalid and they correctly directed his reinstatement and payment of back wages. To the latter argument, referred to above, it was urged that when the services of non-petitioner No. 1 had already been terminated by the earlier order dated 11th December, 1980 with effect from 10th January, 1981, there was no occasion for the second order dated 29th August, 1981 being issued unless non-petitioner No. 1 had first been reinstated and, therefore, this second notice or order is of no avail to the petitioner. It has also been contended that non petitioner No. 1 was not at all responsible for the loss of any part of the stock of "ghee" and that the cost of the "ghee" could not have been recovered from him.