On 14 12 1984, the appellant wrote to the third respondent warning him of action for misconduct because he had been assembling and addressing workers inside the factory premises for trade union or political purposes.
On 21 12 1984, the third respondent wrote to the appellant saying that he had been educating the workers on Hindu Sikh unity during the lunch break and this did number amount to interference with the working of the factory.
284426 dated 28 12 1984 in full and final settlement of your account.
The letter of termination simply said that the period of temporary appointment ended on 31 12 1984 by efflux of time whereafter the third respondent ceased to be in the appellants service.
On 28 12 1984, the appellant wrote to the third respondent recording that he had been appointed on temporary basis for a period of two years ending 31 12 1984.
He also stated that he was a trade union leader and office bearer.
During or at the expiry of this period if your work or companyduct is number found satisfactory or your services are numberlonger required by the Company these would be terminated as per Clause 8 above.
The Labour Court decided the dispute in favour of the third respondent.
The third respondent sought a reference for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 of the question Whether termination of the services of a workman is justified and in order?
The third respondent put his signature to the appointment order accepting the employment on the terms and companyditions therein stated.
The appellant thereupon moved the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a writ petition.
The appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court.
Special leave granted.
If number, to what relief exact amount of companypensation is he entitled?
