The appellant Company thereafter preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the said High Court being Writ Appeal No.
The respondent, Sri T. Prasad, was appointed as a Personnel Officer of the appellant Company registered under the Companies Act, on June 18, 1990.
It was companytended that he was assured at the time of appointment by the Genera Manager of the Company that he would be promoted as Assistant.
Hence, his service companyditions are governed by the Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder and the termination of the services of Labour Welfare Officer cannot be made without companycurrence of the Commissioner of Labour, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
On October 8, 1991, the employment of the said respondent was terminated by giving a months salary in lieu of numberice.
2385 of 1992.
As such, the writ petition was maintainable for challenging the termination of service.
As such the writ petition was number maintainable for challenging the termination of service of Sri Prasad and the termination of service was a matter of companytract between the Company and its employee.
The said respondent also companytended that by virtue of his appointment as Personnel Officer he had to look after the welfare of the labourers employed in the factory.
Hence, he should be deemed to be Labour Welfare Officer within the meaning of Section 49 of the Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder.
581 of 1992.
The said respondent thereafter questioned the legality and validity of the order of termination by filing a Writ Petition before the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
In the writ proceedings, the appellant, Shyam Vinyals Ltd., raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition inter alia on the ground that Sri Prasad was number appointed as a Labour Welfare Officer under Section 49 of the Factories Act and that there was numberstatutory requirement of appointing any Labour Welfare Officer by the appellant under the Factories Act.
Manager Personnel after companyfirmation and his pay would be fixed at par with other Assistant Manager working in the organisation Rs.
4500/ per month and he would be provided with transport from Gudur to the factory every day.
As such the termination made in breach of the said statutory provision, must be held to be illegal and void.
But after companyfirmation, such benefits were number given to him and as he insisted for implementing the assurances, his employment was unjustly terminated on October 8, 1991.
Accordingly, his appointment must be held to be statutory appointment under Section 49 of the Factories Act.
Since the companyditions of service of Labour Welfare Officer are statutorily companytrolled by the provision of the Section 49 of the Factories Act and the Rules made thereunder and as the termination of the services of a Labour Welfare Officer cannot be effected without the companycurrence of the Commissioner of Labour of the State Government, the writ petition was maintainable and Sri Prasad was entitled for appropriate writs quashing the illegal order of termination.
Initially, he was placed on probation and on April 20, 1991, his service was companyfirmed by the said Company.
Against such decision passed in the Writ Appeal the instant appeal has been preferred before this Court.
N. Ray, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated October 1, 1992 passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
581 of 1992 affirming the order dated April 24, 1992 passed by the single Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.
It was inter alia provided in the terms of appointment that the services of the respondent companyld be terminated with a months numberice or salary in lieu thereof.
