SUNNY Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD SIROHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he passed Higher Secondary Examinations in the year 1982 and is a holder of I. T. I. Certificate, which is a qualification requisite for appointment to the post of Surveyer. It is alleged that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Surveyer with effect from 1. 1. 1987 and his services were terminated with effect from 1. 1. 1989. THE contention of the petitioner is that this termination is in clear violation of s. 25-F (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act' ). He has submitted that compliance of s. 25-F (a) and (b) of the Act is mandatory and, therefore, the termination of the petitioner is void ab-initio.

(3.) IT was contended by Mr. Choudhary that termination of the services of the petitioner is being held to be void ab-initio, the petitioner should be paid all back wages. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently controverted this submission ans has submitted that in this case, he has put in appearance way back in the month of April 1989 and thereafter, it was the petitioner who sought adjournments after adjournments and, therefore, he is not entitled to any back wages. I am not impressed by this argument of Mr. Gupta as the termination is challenged on the ground of non-compliance of s. 25-F of the Act. Mr, Gupta has further submitted that in case, his submission is not accepted and back wages are allowed to the petitioner then it should be ensured that the petitioner was not in gainful employment during this period. Mr. Choudhary has submitted that in case, it is held that the termination is void ab-initio, the employee is entitled to all back wages whether he was in gainful employment or he was out of employment. In this respect, reliance was placed on 1986 (2) SCC-362. (1 ).