The High Court companycurred with the finding recorded by the Tribunal that it was a case of retrenchment but was of the opinion that numberinterference was called for with the Award passed by the Tribunal having regard to Regulations 5 and 103.
The appellant was employed on 4.12.1981 as a clerk on ad hoc basis by respondent No.
The Tribunal refused to grant relief of reinstatement on the ground that the regular appointment to the post held by the appellant companyld only be made by the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board as per U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board as per U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 for short the Regulations and as such he companyld number be reinstated in service as a regular employee.
However, the Tribunal granted benefits of retrenchment with 12 interest for the relevant period.
1 Industrial Tribunal after holding inquiry and on the basis of the evidence held that termination of the services of the appellant was clearly retrenchment as defined in Section 2 S of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and was also companytrary to Section 6 N of the said Act hereinafter referred to as the State Act .
It may be stated here itself that the respondent No.
2 U.P. Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Ltd. for short the Bank .
He was serving as such till 19.7.1985 companytinuously with small motivated breaks in between to ensure that the appellant did number have companytinuous service of more than 89 days.
2 did number challenge the Award of the Tribunal.
His services were terminated by an oral order dated 19.7.1985.
Since the Tribunal denied the relief of reinstatement and full back wages the appellant filed the writ petition aggrieved by that part of the order of the Tribunal.
He raised an industrial dispute challenging termination of his services.
In the view it took the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Shivaraj V. Patil, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.5.1996 made by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
14 of 1989.
Hence the aggrieved appellant is before us in this appeal.
Respondent No.
