The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the term 'retrenchment' under Section 2(oo) of the I.D. Act, and the relevance of special bye laws and mandatory recruitment through employment exchange.

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner is the management of a Co-operative Society. Aggrieved by the award made by the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.123 of 1996 dated 25.03.1998, the present writ petition has been filed. By the impugned award, the Labour Court has directed the reinstatement of the second respondent with full backwages, service continuity and other attendant benefits together with costs of Rs.400/-.

3. The writ petition was admitted on 11.09.1998. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay. On the second respondent workman filing an application for vacating the interim stay, this Court by an order dated 12.09.2000 directed the petitioner bank to deposit a sum of Rs.35,000/-with the Labour Court. On such deposit, the Labour Court was directed to invest the same in a nationalised bank with the permission to the second respondent to withdraw quarterly interest. The petitioner bank was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards backwages to the second respondent. Further a direction was granted to pay Rs.1050/-commencing from September 2000 towards monthly payment under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short I.D. Act) pending disposal of the writ petition. It is stated that the petitioner bank had complied with those conditions.

4. It is the case of the second respondent that he was appointed as a last grade servant by the petitioner bank with effect from 13.03.1989 on daily wages. Initially, the daily wages was Rs.22/- and subsequently, it was increased to Rs.35/-. However, all of a sudden, he was removed from service on 210. 1995 without any orders. He also claimed that he has worked for a period of six years, seven months and eight days continuously. He has also submitted that another employee by name Sivaraman who was appointed on 05.03.1991 (subsequent to the appointment of the second respondent) was allowed to continue. Therefore, the petitioner bank had contravened Section 25F and 25G of the I.D.Act.

.5. As against his non-employment, he raised an industrial dispute before the Government Labour Officer. On a failure report being submitted, he filed a claim statement before the first respondent Labour Court. The Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D.No.123 of 1996 and issued notice to the petitioner bank. The petitioner Bank filed a counter statement.

6. In the counter statement, the petitioner bank submitted that the second respondent was appointed on daily wages on the basis of the approval given by the then Board of Directors, which was not according to the special bye laws applicable to the service conditions of the employees of the bank. His appointment was not through employment exchange and he was not a regular workman. Since his appointment was an irregular appointment his services were dispensed with by the Special Officer. The allegation that a junior was continuing in service was also denied.

7. Before the Labour Court, on behalf of he petitioner bank, four documents were filed and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M4. There was neither any oral evidence let in nor any documents were filed by the second respondent. On the side of the petitioner bank, one Parameswaran was examined as M.W.1.

.8. The Labour Court on an analysis of the evidence placed before it came to the conclusion that the petitioner having worked more than 240 days is eligible for protection under Section 25F of the I.D.Act. With reference to the audit objection, it found that the second respondents name was not specifically mentioned in the audit report. Since the petitioner management has not specifically denied the averment made by the workman that he had joined service on 30.02.1989, the said fact is deemed to have been admitted. With reference to the appointment of Sivaraman, though it was stated that his name was sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, and he was appointed as a Binder from 01.01.1993 to 30.06.1993, but as the said Sivaraman had bee