Issuance of notice for termination of service of an employee.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the award of the first-respondents in I.D. No. 75 of 1978. That industrial dispute related to the termination of the services of one Uma Shankar, here in a after referred to as the workman, by the petitioner. The issue referred for adjudication by the first-respondent read as follows:

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Madras, in terminating the services of Shri. K. Umashankar, Cashier with effect from 5.10.1973 while retaining Shri. Mathia kumar, Junior to him, in the service of the bank, is justified? if not, to what relief is the workmen concerned entitled?.

The necessary facts have got to be set down for the purpose of appreciating the Submissions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counter submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the workman. On 15.2.1973, the workman was appointed as a temporary clerk by the petitioner and the terms of appointment ran as follows:

Sri. K. Umashankar is hereby appointed as a temporary Clerk at this Office for a period of one month from 15th February, 1973 on a monthly salary of Rs. 190 and other allowances applicable to ward staff. His appointment is subject to the following terms and conditions:

1. The appointment is purely a temporary one liable to be terminated subject to 14 days notice or 14 days wages in lieu thereof without assigning any reason there for at the Bank's discretion.

2. If Sri. K. Umasankar wishes to leave the service, he should give 14 days notice in writing, failing which he will be held liable a week's wage.

3. This temporary appointment will not confer on him any right to claim a permanent appointment in the Bank.

The initial period of appointment was extended from time to time and the last extention was on 28.9.1973 effective form 6.9.1973 for a period of' one month. After the lapse of the period of one month from 6.9.1973, the workman was not continued in employment. Practically, after the lapse of one year and 9 months, the workman, taking note of a pronouncement of the highest Court in the land, conceived the idea of demanding reinstatement through counsel's notice on 16.7.1975. This was not acceded to by the petitioner, by its reply dated 13.8.1975. Thereafter, there was a lull until 2nd March, 1978, on which date the workman through his union raised an industrial dispute over his non-employment. That dispute got conciliated and ultimately it was referred for adjudication to the first-respondent on 3.10.1980. In between, certain events did transpire, which events however, were not brought to the, notice of the first-respondent. The workman got into the services of Bharat Overseas Bank Limited on 4.9.1978. His employment with that bank was confirmed on 4.3.1979. Even today, the workman continues to be in the said employment. The industrial dispute was adjudicated upon by the first-respondent and the first-respondent by the impugned award, came to the conclusion that the termination of the services of the workman by the petitioner was not justified and taking note of the fact that the industrial dispute was raised only on 2nd March, 1978, the first-respondent, while directing reinstatement of the workman, awarded back wages only from March, 1978.

2. M.R. Narayanaswamy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the first-respondent was not consistent in his views on the question of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and in one place in the impugned award, the first-respondent observed that the workman would not be entitled to the benefits under Section 25-F of the Act and in another place the observations of the first-respondent indicate that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act would be applicable and there has been a violation of the same in the matter of terminating the services of the workman by the petitioner. N.G.R. Prasad, learned Counsel appearing for the wo