Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Madan Singh Rawat vs Ajmer Central Co-Operative Bank And ... on 12 May, 1998
Equivalent citations: (2000)ILLJ984RAJ, 1999(1)WLC43
Author: J.S. Sidhu
Bench: J.S. Sidhu
JUDGMENT Saxena, J.
1. This special appeal has been directed against the order dated April 23, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3973/1993, whereby appellant's writ petition was dismissed.
2. Succinctly stated, relevant facts are that the appellant was initially appointed as a Class IV servant in service of the respondent Bank w.e.f. November 20, 1990 against sanctioned post on a consolidated monthly pay of Rs. 600/-in pursuance of the decision taken in meeting of Board of Directors of the Bank held on August 17, 1981 (Annexure 1). However, the respondent No. 1 vide order dated March 16, 1992 (Annexure 2) terminated services of the appellant without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without serving him any notice. The appellant challenged his termination order (Annexure 2) in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2485/1992, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated March 22, 1993 (Annexure 3) and his termination order dated March 16, 1992 was quashed and the appellant was directed to be reinstated in service. However, it was made clear that the respondent Bank was free to terminate service of the appellant in accordance with law. Consequent upon the order (Annexure 3) the appellant was reinstated. However, the respondent Bank vide its order dated May 13, 1993 (Annexure 4) again terminated services of the appellant under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act w.e.f. May 13, 1993. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of termination (Annexure 4) the petitioner filed writ petition before this Court. However, the learned single Bench by its order dated April 23, 1997 held that no case for interference was made out and dismissed the writ petition. Hence this special appeal.
3. We have heard Shri B.L. Samdaria, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.K. Pahwa, the learned counsel for the respondents at length and carefully perused the relevant record.
4. The main contention of Shri Samdaria is that the respondents while terminating the services of the appellant have again violated the mandatory provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch that since appellant's earlier termination order (Annexure 2) was quashed by this Court and he was reinstated in service with continuity of service, he shall be deemed to have been in continuous service from November 20, 1990 till May 13, 1993, i.e., for a period of about two years, five months and twenty three days, but the respondents have given him retrenchment compensation of 15 days pay, which is inadequate and not in accordance with the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25F(b) of the Act and, therefore, termination of the appellant is non-est, mill and void, and the same deserves to be set aside.
5. Shri R.K. Pahwa has vehemently contended that there is no violation of provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Act, because the appellant was reinstated in service on March 12, 1993 that he was not in service of the bank from March 16, 1992 to March 11, 1993 and that his services were validly retrenched on May 13, 1993 and, therefore, retrenchment compensation for 15 days pay to the appellant is adequate and in accordance with provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Act.
6. We are not at all impressed by this argument of Shri Pahwa. The appellant was initially appointed as Class IV servant in the respondent Bank on November 20, 1990 and, his services were illegally terminated from March 16, 1992 and his termination order Annexure 2 was held to be illegal and the same was set aside by this Court vide Annexure 3 and he was ordered to be reinstated in service. In such circumstances, it shall be deemed that the appellant was in continuous service of the respondent Bank since November 20, 1990, even though he was reinstated on March 2, 1993. His services were again terminated from May 13, 1993. Thus the appellant was in continuous service of the respondent-Bank for a period of two years, 5 months and 23 days. In view of this, the retrenchment compensation for 15 days pay given to appellant is positively inadequate and not in accordance with mandatory provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Act. It is really a sad state of affairs that the respondent Bank despite this Court's specific direction that the appellant's services may be terminated in accordance with law afresh, did not follow the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated May 13, 1993 Annexure 4 terminating the services of the appellant is illegal and non est and the same cannot be sustained. The learned single Judge however has not given any reason while dismissing the appellant's writ petition except that no case for interference was made out. The learned single Bench's order dated April 23, 1997, therefore, deserves to be set aside.
7. In the result, this special appeal is allowed and impugned order dated April 23, 1997 passed by the learned single Judge as also the impugned order of termination dated May 13, 1993 (Annexure 4) are hereby set aside and the respondent Bank is directed to reinstate the appellant Babulal in service with all back wages from the date of his illegal termination i.e. w.e.f. May 13, 1993. The respondent-Bank shall be at liberty to retrench the appellant de novo in accordance with law. No order as to costs.