Termination of employment for a reasonable cause does not require compliance with the requirement of providing one month's notice or wages in lieu of notice under Section 26(1) of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act.

B.P.Singh, J.

1. The petitioner, Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Biscomaun) has preferred this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patna, dated November 18, 1991 holding that the order terminating the services of respondent No. 3 was illegal, and that respondent No. 3 is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages, The aforesaid Presiding Officer, Labour Court is the prescribed authority under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act.

2. The facts of the case are that Biscomaun is a Cooperative Society registered under the Bihar and Orissa Co-operative Societies Act. It was being managed by a Managing Committee till it was superseded by the Government of Bihar on July 30, 1988. The Government appointed an Administrator vesting in him all the powers of the Board of Directors. The affairs of Biscomaun had reached a stage when the Government of Bihar had no option but to supersede the Managing Committee of the Society and to appoint an Administrator. The Administrator appointed observed large scale irregularities in the management of the Society, and he came across cases of irregular/invalid appointments made by the then Managing Committee which involved Biscamaun into heavy financial liability. Respondent No. 3 herein applied on December 7, 1987 for appointment as Development Officer/Range Officer. The application (Annexure-1) discloses that he based his claim for appointment on the ground that his father had rendered 40 years of service to Biscomaun, and that he being a son of a retired employee, had a preferential claim for appointment. The Chairman of the Society on December 7, 1987 itself endorsed the application to the Managing Director. On December 12, 1987 the Advisor, Rehabilitation, Biscomaun, recommended for appointment of respondent No. 3 as a special case having regard to the services rendered by his father. On the recommendation of the Advisor, the Managing Director put up a note on December 27, 1987 to the Chairman recommending the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a special case. He suggested that respondent No. 3 may be initially designated as Development Officer (Fertiliser) and may be appointed on probation for six months. The initial appointment could be made purely on ad hoc temporary basis in order to avoid complications, specially in view of the rehabilitation programme initiated by the Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter on December 28, 1987 respondent No. 3 was appointed as Development Officer, Fertiliser, on a purely ad hoc basis and was put on probation for a period of six months. The letter of appointment (Annexure-2) was signed by the Managing Director. On the very next day respondent No. 3 submitted his joining report which was accepted. On July 30, 1988, the Managing Committee of Biscomaun was superseded, and the Government of Bihar appointed an Administrator. All appointments made after July 1, 1985 were reviewed, and it was then delected that respondent No. 3 had been appointed to the post of Development Officer, Fertiliser, which post did not exist. It was also found that his application had been dealt with in a special manner, and without advertisement or notice, he had been appointed. There was no policy to appoint sons of retired employees on compassionate grounds, because appointment could be made on compassionate ground only where the bread earner of the family died in harness. A report was submitted by the Special Officer (Administration) to the Administrator of Biscomaun, and agreeing with the report, the Administrator by his order dated October 11, 1988 decided to terminate the services of respondent No. 3, as the same had been made illegally. An order was issued on October 17, 1988/November 8, 1988 terminating the services of respondent No. 3 on the ground that his appointment was illegal and irregular. The order also mentions that he shal