It was companytended therein that he had worked for a period of more than 240 days and that his services were terminated without assigning any reason.
It was further directed that it was open to the appellant, at any time, to call upon the second respondent to join duty without prejudice to his right in this appeal and if respondent No 2 was so called then he should join the duty.
Second extension was granted for a period of two months by order dated 7th March, 1979.
It accordingly ordered the reinstatement of respondent No.2 with full back wages.
Conciliation proceedings took place but it resulted in failure report being made by the Conciliation Officer.
The aforesaid temporary appointment of respondent No.
Along with respondent No.2 three other doctors were similarly appointed.
during all the shifts.
The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court challenging the said award without success.
Respondent No.
It also awarded interest at the rate of twelve per cent annum.
It was further directed that if respondent No.2, when called, did number join the duty then he will number get any future salary and allowances.
The parties led evidence before the Labour Court.
Thereafter special leave petition, which was filed by the appellant, was granted on 17th March, 1988 and it was directed that on the second respondents filling an affidavit as required by section 17 B of the Act, the back wages and future salary and allowances shall be payable to him in accordance with the award.
It appears form the record that in order to fill the said vacancies on regular basis advertisements were issued and interviews were held first in the year 1979 and thereafter in the year 1981.
It is thereafter that respondent No.
By office order dated 17th April, 1979 these doctors were informed that on the companypletion of their term of appointment on ad hoc basis they would be relieved of their duties Respondent No.2 made representation dated 20th April, 1979 on the receipt of the aforesaid order dated 17th April, 1979.
If number, whether he is entitled to reinstatement or any other relief ?
2, along with three other doctors who were appointed with him, thus companytinued for a period of eleven months.
Theappointment was on ad hoc basis for a period of six months with effect from 18th May, 1978.
Thereupon, by award dated 25th February, 1986 the Labour Court rejected the appellants companytention and held that as numbernotice of one month, as companytemplated by Section 25 F of the Act, had been given to respondent No.2, therefore, his termination was bad in law.
2 had applied but was number found suitable for selection.
2 after he had been relieved, had applied for fresh selection against open advertisement and, therefore, it must be regarded as if he had waived his right to challenge his termination of service.
It was also companytended that respondent No.
All the four doctors were posted at the First Aid Posts which are being maintained by the appellant companyporation for providing emergency medical services in case of accidents etc.
2 raised an industrial dispute regarding the alleged illegal termination of his services by the order dated 17th April, 1979.
This ad hoc appointment to the temporary post was first extended for a period of three months by order dated 30th November, 1978.
Kirpal J. The appellant had appointed respondent No.2 as Doctor in theGeneral Duty Medical Officer Grade II on 17th May, 1978.
