Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.:-

1. This order shall dispose of a batch of six writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 3356, 3357, 3359, 3364, 3370 and 3412 of 2012 as the question involved in all the cases is similar. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 3356 of 2012.

2. The petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. It has challenged the award of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, whereby the reference has been decided in favour of the workman who has been held entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice.

3. According to the petitioner, the workman was appointed as a Security Guard in the petitioner-society on 31.01.2006 in the pay scale of ` 2750-4300/- on ad-hoc basis, without the post having been advertised. His services were regularized on 31.05.2006. On 17.08.2006, the President of the Workers' Union made a complaint about illegal appointment of the workman and other persons on extraneous considerations by the Managing Director of the petitioner-society. A fact-finding inquiry was conducted in which it was found that appointment of the workman and five other persons was without advertisement of the posts and without obtaining No Objection Certificate from the Employment Exchange/District Soldier Board. The applications were directly received in the Mill and those persons were appointed. After receipt of the inquiry report, the workman was served with a show cause notice dated 02.11.2006, but instead of filing the reply, he filed a suit along with an application for stay. The Civil Court dismissed the application for stay and, thereafter, the workman was dismissed from service on 18.11.2006 as per the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its meeting held on 17.11.2006. The workman served a demand notice on 08.01.2007, challenging the dismissal order alleging that he was fully eligible for the purpose of appointment to the post in question and the petitioner did not follow the mandatory provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") as the workman had already completed more than 240 days.

4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court where the issue was framed on 24.05.2007 about the legality of the order of dismissal. The Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal, inter alia, on the ground that being a confirmed employee, he could not have been dismissed from service without following the due procedure and if there was any lapse at the time of his entering into service, it got cured after his confirmation. It was also observed that MW1 has admitted that after dismissal of the services of the workman, fresh recruitment has been made without giving an opportunity to the workman which is in violation of Section 25-H of the Act.

5. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that service of the workman was governed by the Service Rules for the Employees of the Cooperative Sugar Mills in the State of Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the "Service Rules"), notified on 24.04.1991. He has referred to Rule 6 of the Service Rules, which is reproduced as under:--

"6. Method of Recruitment: The method of recruitment will be as under:--

(a) By Promotion

(b) By Deputation

(c) Direct Recruitment

(a) By Promotion:- By promotion from the permanently/temporary employees of the Societies fulfilling the qualification and experience of the post and having good work and conduct.

(b) On Deputation:- By taking on deputation from the Govt. or Coop. Sugar Mills in the State of Haryana.

(c) Direct Recruitment:- Direct recruitment through advertisement/Employment Exchange as per instructions of Govt. issued from time to time.

Qualifications

Sr.No. Category of Post By Direct Recruitment By Promotion

Xx Xx Xx

Security Section:

1 Security Officer (Sup-C) Retired Commissioned Officer from Army no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document