Munir vs Municipal Board

Rajesh Balia, J.—The petition raises a very short question. The undisputed fact is this that petitioner was employed by respondent No. 1 on daily wages from 11.2.88 to 31.12.88 in the first instance and thereafter from 1.2.89 to 31st July, 1989, excepting for the period between 1st May 1989 to 5th May 1 989. On 31st July 1989 the petitioners services were terminated without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act and the petitioner filed this petition on 11.8.89 challenging the validity of termination order, interalia, on the ground that petitioner having already completed more than. 240 days of service during 12 months immediately preceding the date on which termination of services have taken place and one month''s notice u/s 25F or salary in lieu of one month''s notice alongwith the retrenchment compensation has not been paid before valid retrenchment could take place.

The only plea raised in defence is that the petitioner''s services were not terminated but he voluntarily relinquished his services on 31st July, 1989 and, therefore, certificate of efficient working was issued to him at his request.

The very fact that the services were terminated on 31st July 1989 and affidavit has been filed challenging the validity of termination order as early as on 11th August, 1989, clearly belies the plea of voluntary relinquishment of service. The document Ex.1 nowhere states that the petitioner voluntary resigned from the duty. Therefore no inference can be drawn from Annx.1, Certificate issued by respondent No. 1 about the efficient working of the petitioner, that he voluntarily resigned from service.

In this view of the matter, it clearly is a case of termination of services. It is not disputed before me that the provisions of Section 25F have not been complied with. The applicability of provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are not disputed. Termination being in violation of Chapter IIA of Industrial Disputes Act has to be held void ab initio.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The termination of the petitioner''s services are quashed and, respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with effect from 31st July 1989, with all consequential benefits including the continuity of the service.