He was paid companysolidated salary of Rs.1,000/ per month.
1,000/ per month.
The wages were paid on piece rate basis.
Sd President Minicipal Council, Sanaur Patiala In furtherance of the aforesaid resolution, the respondent engaged the appellant, who was already in its employment, as a Clerk for a period of six months on companytract basis on companysolidated salary of Rs.
State of Karnataka v. Umadevi 2006 1 SCC 1 State of M.P. v. Lalit Kumar Verma 2007 1 SCC 575 Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation v M.C. Joshi 2007 2 SCC LS 813 M.P. Administration v. Tribhuban 2007 9 SCC 748 Mahboob Deepak v. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula 2008 1 SCC 575 and Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Ashok Kumar 2008 4 SCC The Division Bench was of the view that the Labour Court should number have ordered reinstatement of the appellant because his appointment was companytrary to the recruitment rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it would number be in public interest to sustain the award of reinstatement after long lapse of time.
In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondent, it was pleaded that the appellant was engaged on companytract basis and his service was terminated because the Director, Local Self Government did number give approval to the resolution passed for his employment.
His service was discontinued with effect from 30.9.1996 without giving him numberice and companypensation as per the requirement of Section 25 F of the Act.
Thereafter, the resolution was sent to the Director, Local Self Government but numberresponse was received from the companycerned authority and, therefore, it became necessary to discontinue the service of the appellant.
According to the respondent, the resolution passed for engaging the appellant was sent to the Deputy Director for approval, but the same was returned with the remark that the approval may be obtained from the Director, Local Self Government.
In the statement of claim filed by him, the appellant pleaded that he had companytinuously worked in the employment of the respondent from 1.8.1994 to 29.9.1996 that his service was terminated without holding any enquiry and without giving him numberice and companypensation and that persons junior to him were retained in service.
After companysidering the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced by them, the Labour Court passed an award for reinstatement of the appellant without back wages.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
The appellant was engaged by the respondent with effect from 1.8.1994 for doing the work of clerical nature.
He companytinued in the service of the respondent till 29.09.1996.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the writ petition filed by the respondent whereby the award passed by Labour Court, Patiala for short, the Labour Court for reinstatement of the appellant was set aside and it was declared that he shall be entitled to wages in terms of Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for short, the Act .
The appellant challenged the termination of his service by raising an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court.
This exercise was repeated in 1996 and the appellants term was extended for six months from 1.5.1996.
It is true that the engagement of the appellant was number preceded by an advertisement and companysideration of the companypeting claims of other eligible persons but that exercise companyld number be undertaken by the respondent because of the ban imposed by the State Government.
At the end of six months, the respondent passed another resolution dated 30.11.1995 and again employed the appellant for a period of six months from 1.11.1995 to 20.4.1996.
However, his engagement was discontinued w.e.f.
