IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 7428 of 2008 Date of decision: 6th May, 2008 Indian Council for Child Welfare, Chandigarh. … Petitioner Versus Industrial Tribunal and Labour Court, Chandigarh and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. Indian Council for Child Welfare (ICCW), Chandigarh UT Branch, Bal Bhawan, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh through its Honorary Secretary Mrs.Amandeep Kaur, PCS has challenged the impugned award (Annexure P-6) passed by the learned Labour Court, Chandigarh, whereby learned Labour Court has held as under: “(1) The termination of the services of the workman is held to be as per the terms and conditions of his appointment. (2) The order of termination has been issued by an authority Junior in rank to the appointing authority, as such, is held to be illegal. Civil Writ Petition No. 7428 of 2008 (3) The relief of reinstatement is declined and the workman is allowed a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- for his illegal termination by an authority lower in rank to the appointing authority.” Respondent-workman, Ramesh Bhatia, as per the demand notice (Annexure P-4) had worked as Accounts Clerk for the period from 01.06.2000 to 06.08.2002 in the office of the petitioner. He has stated in the demand notice that on 31.07.2002, without any cause one month’s notice for the period 01.08.2002 to 31.08.2002 was served upon him regarding the condition No.8 of the appointment letter despite the fact that he had passed the type test, which was held on 29.04.2002. In written statement to the demand notice (Annexure P-5), it was stated that it was specifically stipulated in the appointment letter dated 24.05.2000 that it was necessary to pass the type test at a speed of 30 words per minute within six months of his appointment, failing which his services would be dispensed with. That in spite of numerous opportunities having been provided to him to pass the type test, workman could not pass the test. Therefore, his services were dispensed with by the management vide order dated 31.07.2002. On the basis of demand notice (Annexure P-4), following reference was made to the learned Labour Court: “Whether the services of the workman were terminated illegally by the respondent/ management; If so, to what effect and to what relief the workman is entitled to, if any?” The learned Labour Court, while going into the various issues raised and from the evidence, held that the appointment letter (Ex.W-1) was issued by the Honorary Secretary whereas order of termination has 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 7428 of 2008 been signed by Assistant Secretary, who is junior in rank than the Honorary Secretary and held the termination to be bad. However, taking the larger view of the whole controversy learned Labour Court held that since the workman could not pass the typing test as envisaged in his appointment letter, even if his termination is held to be bad and the workman is ordered to be reinstated, management can again terminate his services and in view of the fact that the workman has only worked for a period of two years it will be just and proper to award Rs.25000/- as compensation than to reinstate and order back wages to the workman. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-management has taken us through the various orders passed on the file, which culminated into passing of the termination order by the Assistant Secretary. We are convinced that learned Labour Court has rightly returned the finding of fact that there was no order by the Honorary Secretary to dispense with the services of the workman. The approach adopted by the learned Labour Court is just and equitable. No interference is called for. Hence, the present writ petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE [ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA] JUDGE May 06, 2008 rps 3