C.W.P No.3221 of 1992 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.3221 of 1992 Date of Decision: 10.07.2009 The Punjab State Co-operative Bank, Chandigarh .....Petitioner Versus Bhagwan Singh and another ....Respondents Present: Mr. S.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.1. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. To the reference before the Labour Court, by the Government, for an appreciation whether the workman appointed as a Clerk with the Punjab State Co-operative Bank had been terminated legally or otherwise, the Labour Court held the termination to be bad and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% of back wages. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the workman had been appointed as a Clerk on temporary basis on 07.03.1986 and the termination had taken place on 12.05.1987. The Labour Court found that the workman had not completed 240 days of service but still held on the evidence of MW-1, Mr. Gopal Krishan Sood that the termination was made on account of bad reports against the workman. This evidence was taken by the Labour Court as a C.W.P No.3221 of 1992 -2- termination not simpliciter but a termination attributing misconduct on the part of the workman and therefore, the termination effected without appropriate enquiry was illegal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the management-Bank points out that there was not even an order regarding termination of the workman and there was no basis for the Labour Court to enter a finding that the termination was effected as a measure of punishment. His further contention was that the initial engagement itself was temporary and not done through the process as required in the Service Rules pertaining to the Bank which described the Board of Directors alone to be the selection authority and the employment of the petitioner again had not been routed through Employment Exchange and the direction for reinstatement, under such circumstances, was clearly illegal. 4. I find that the Labour Court was not justified in stating that the termination was in the nature of punishment, in the absence of any such plea by the workman or any reference to it even in the written statement of the management. What was elicited in the cross- examination that there had been some bad reports about the workman was not sufficient basis to enter a finding that termination was entered only as a measure of punishment. After all, there was no sanctioned post and no appointment was made in the manner the service rules required. Admittedly, the workman had also not completed 240 days of service. There is simply no basis for the Labour Court to direct a reinstatement and award also back wages with continuity of service. If the workman had not been employed even for 240 days, the C.W.P No.3221 of 1992 -3- question of giving him the compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act also does not arise. 5. The award of the Labour Court is, therefore, liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 10, 2009 Pankaj*