CWP No.3413 of 1990 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.3413 of 1990 DATE OF DECISION: March 25, 2011 ASHOK KUMAR SONI ...PETITIONER VERSUS STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? No ---- PRESENT: MR. ASHOK AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER. NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner complained of unlawful termination of service and sought adjudication before the Labour Court securing a reference from the Government that he was appointed as a Lift Operator on 20.4.1984 and he continued in service till he was prevented from reporting for duty on 17.4.1986. His contention was that at that relevant date he had held 240 days of continuous service and he could not have been terminated from service without either serving any notice under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act or following the procedure prescribed by law. His further contention was that he was entitled to regularization as on that date. The contention in response which was accepted by the Labour Court was that as per Memorandum issued on 11.4.1988, the upper age limit was 24 for appointment to the post and as on 25.4.1984, the petitioner did not fulfill the said requirement and that he was overaged. The Labour Court relied on the CWP No.3413 of 1990 -2- document produced by the Management and proceeded to hold that he ought not to have allowed to hold the post and the termination was, therefore, justified. 2. The contention before this Court is that the Labour Court was in error in relying on the Memorandum issued on 11.4.1988, when the issue is with regard to termination that was made in the year 1986. Evidently, this Memorandum did not apply and was not even in force at that time when he was terminated from service. The bank has filed its reply denying the petitioner's entitlement and has also produced before the Court a copy of Volume II of the Reference Book on Staff Matters issued by the Personnel Department consolidated upto 31.12.1985, that sets out, inter alia, that the maximum age qualification for entering into service was 24 years and the relaxation is provided for the upper age limit to certified classes of persons. This reply has been filed on 1.18.1990 and I am not seeing that through any averment of the petitioner in replication that he falls within any of the categories to avail of a consideration for relaxation of the upper age limit. The petitioner contends that even if the petitioner was not entitled to the post, he could not have been simply terminated from service without following the procedure by law and there is definitely a case of violation of statutory mandate under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, especially when it is not in dispute that the petitioner had 240 days of continuous service at the relevant time when his services stood terminated. For a violation of statutory mandate there could still be no direction for reinstatement at this length of time especially, when the petitioners initial engagement was not valid as per the extant Regulations. The only benefit that petitioner could obtain for the unlawful termination would be to CWP No.3413 of 1990 -3- compensate him and for the 1½ years that he has held, I will provide a compensation of `25,000/-. The respondents are directed to pay the said amount within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. 3. The award stands modified to the above extent and the writ petition is disposed of accordingly. March 25, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE