STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. ASHOK TOWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in CWJC No. 4653 of 1996 are the appellants in this appeal. The respondent herein, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, was appointed as a typist. His services were terminated. An industrial dispute " was raised challenging the termination. It was numbered as Reference Case No. 07/1989. The question was whether the termination of the writ petitioner was unjustified and if it was unjustified, whether he was entitled to reinstatement or any other relief. Even though the reference was pending adjudication, on 10/89 the writ petitioner was reinstated in the post which he was holding prior to the termination. In the award dated 5/12/1990, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that the termination of the writ petitioner was done without complying with the requirement of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He, therefore held that the termination was unjustified and illegal. While taking note of the reinstatement with effect from 10/07/1989, the Labour Court ordered that the writ petitioner was not entitled to any back wages but he was entitled to get all the benefits equal to a regular workman since the date of his reinstatement on 10/07/1989. Thereafter, on 20/03/1996, the services of the writ petitioner was again terminated after allegedly complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. This time, the workman, (the writ petitioner) without invoking the remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act, came to this Court direct, with the writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 4653 of 1996, challenging his termination on the ground that the second termination was illegal, that in the light of the earlier award of the Labour Court which was binding on the appellants, the services of the writ petitioner could not have been terminated, that the post was available and has not ceased to exist and in the circumstances, the termination was bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside. He also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to regularize his services.

(2.) According to the writ petitioner, the post was available and he was working in that post, that the Executive Engineer was not justified in terminating his services, that he had no authority to do so and that the termination smacks of mala fides. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the earlier termination was held to be bad in law on the ground that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been complied with. But this time, after complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the termination was effected, that it was justified in law and could not be assailed and that too in a writ petition. It was also submitted that the Government has set out a policy not to continue persons like the writ petitioner who is not a regular employee and it was pursuant to the policy decision of the Government as disclosed from Annexure-3 that the termination was effected after compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, and there was no mala fides involved in the case.

(3.) The learned single Judge held that there was some delay in paying the emoluments due to the writ petitioner pursuant to the earlier award of the Labour Court and this demonstrated the mala fides on the part of the appellants herein. The learned Judge held that the Chief Engineer directed the writ petitioner to be reinstated and the Executive Engineer was not entitled to terminate the services of the writ petitioner. He, therefore, held that the termination was bad in law and directed the reinstatement of the writ petitioner with all consequential benefits and also observed that it will be desirable for the appellants to fill up the post of typist on regular basis and while doing so, the case of the writ petitioner shall also be considered.