On an appeal being filed the lower appellate authority, namely the Additional District Judge relying upon the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act more particularly Section 25F, and then companysidering the requirements therein came to hold that the plaintiff must be held to be in companytinuous service right from the inception and therefore the trial judge was in error in dismissing the suit.
On an application being filed by the plaintiff, he was appointed on 2.7.1 97 1 for a tenure of six months.
The judgment and decree of the trial judge having been reversed and the appeal being allowed, the Bank tiled a second appeal.
While the plaintiff on being appointed on regular basis with effect from 6.3.1973 was companytinuing, a set of Rules came into force called The Punjab State Cooperative Land Mortgage Bank Service Common Cadre Rules 1978 hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules .
The Bank took the stand that the regular appointment of the plaintiff having been made with effect from 6.3.1973 and the earlier period being purely adhoc and that also number being companytinuous, question of companysidering that period for the purpose of seniority would number arise.
The plaintiff appears to have filed a representation on 23.6.1992 which stood rejected and again another representation on 21.10.1992 which was also rejected by the Managing Committee on 6.9.1993.
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that his services right from the inception namely 17.1971 should he companynted for the purpose of his seniority.
The Deputy Registrar however recommended to the Board that the plaintiff companyld be given a regular appointment and this was acceded to by the Board.
The learned trial Judge accepted the said companytention of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs suit.
The plaintiff was number in service from 26.5.1972 till 5.3.197.1 and on 5.3.1973, on the basis of an application made by the plaintiff on 1.3.1973.
The present suit was filed for the relief as already stated.
Thereafter on a fresh application being filed, he was further appointed on 4.1.1972 till 25.5.1972.
The Punjab State Cooperative Agriculture Development Bank, the defendant in the suit is the appellant.
Hence the present appeal.
he was appointed.
