ORDER

1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Mahila Samkhya, Karnataka, is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.

4. This society is engaged in various activities, like encouraging, assisting, promoting, decision making and encouraging group action by women as means of their empowerment and equal participation in the process to bring about social changes and to empower the women. The activities of the said society is being carried out in the districts of Gulbarga, Bidar, Raichur, Bijapur, Bellary, Koppal and Mysore in the State of Karnataka. It has been receiving funds from the Government of Netherlands for the aforementioned activities.

5. The services of respondent No.1 herein as a driver were hired by the appellants. He was initially appointed in the year 1992 on fixed tenure basis. On or about 20th October, 1997, his services were again hired inter alia for the period 1.11.1997 to 31.10.1999. Appellants were, however, entitled to terminate his services with 30 days notice on either side or by payment of compensation of one months honorarium in lieu of notice.

6. It is now not much in dispute that some acts of omission and commission on the part of the 1st respondent were brought to the notice of the authorities of the Society and some purported oral enquiry was conducted at Bangalore in connection with some vehicle bearing No. KA-39 M-42.

7. By reason of a letter dated 3rd July, 1998, however, the services of respondent No.1 were terminated in terms of para 14 of the offer of appointment, stating:

"Vide the above referred letter, you were appointed as a driver in MSK, Gulbarga as per the terms and conditions mentioned therein. In accordance with para XIV of your appointment letter, your services are no longer required in this organization and hence your services are terminated with immediate effect, i.e. with effect from 3.7.98 with one month notice in lieu of which you are being paid one months honorarium."

8. An industrial dispute was raised by the 1st respondent before the Labour Court at Gulbarga. Both the parties adduced their respective evidences before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Having regard to the deposition of Ms. Jyothi Kulkarni examined on behalf of the appellants as NW-1, the Labour Court opined:

"The main contention of the 2nd party is that the termination of the workman 1st party was only a termination simplicitor and the same cannot be disturbed by the Court. In this case the 2nd party has produced the letter dt. 3.7.98. Of course the said letter shows that the appointment was only temporary in nature. This statement as reflected in the letter cannot be accepted. In fact the 1st party has produced before the court the letter issued by the establishment. The said letter issued by the officials of the 2nd party marked as W1 clearly indicates that the service of 1st party was terminated not on account of temporary work but it was due to the fact that the same was not proper."

Holding that as no disciplinary enquiry was conducted, the termination order dated 3.7.1998 was illegal, an award of reinstatement in service with full back wages was made. Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award the appellants filed writ petition in the High Court. The High Court while upholding the award of reinstatement in service reduced the back-wages to 30 per cent.

10. Appellants are, thus, before us.

11. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Labour Court and consequently the High committed a serious illegality in passing the impugned award and the judgment, in so far as they failed to take into consideration that the order of termination did not attract the provisions contained in Chapter VA of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as the termination of services of the 1st respondent came within the purview of clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

12. Mr. Naik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,