ORDER
T.S. Doabia, J.
1. Heard Counsel.
The short submission which has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had completed more than 240 days of service and his services were brought to an end without compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for short the ‘Act’. The requisite averments have been made in para 9 of the petition. There is no denial to this factual submissions made by the petitioner.
2. So far as this Court is concerned, it is settled law that interference can be made under Article 226 of the Constitution and order of rein-statement can be passed in writ jurisdiction if there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Act. Reference in this regard be made to the decision reported in Mahesh Bhargava v. State (1994-I-LLJ-1113) (MP). In view of the above Division Bench judgment, the contention of the petitioner as to whether he is entitled to reinstatement or not is being examined under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. The view is again well settled that in case there is non- compliance of Section 25F of the Act, then the termination is bad. The first decision and the latest decision in this regard be noticed.
(i) State Bank of India v. N. Sunder Money (1976-I-LLJ-478)(SC) and
(ii) Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh and Ors., (1990-II-LLJ-70XSC)
4. The learned counsel for the bank has placed reliance on Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra and Ors. (1994-II-LLJ-977)(SC). It will be seen that the above judgment would not be attracted to the facts of the present case. The Supreme Court was considering the position vis-a-vis regularisation of services. No direction is being given in this case that the services of the petitioner be regularized. All that is being said is that the order of termination passed by the respondent bank being in breach of Section 25F of the Act is not in accordance with law.
5. The learned counsel for the bank has again placed reliance on a decision reported in Surendra Kumar Gyani v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (1993-H-LLJ-903). The Supreme Court in the aforementioned case refused to grant any relief to the employee on the ground that in the letter of appointment it was made clear that the services could be brought to an end without notice. Such is not the position in the present case.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent has again placed reliance on Allahabad High Court decision reported in Zakir Hussain v. Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department and Ors. (1994-I-LLJ-5). All that has been said by the Allahabad High Court is that the employee is not entitled to regularisation.
7. As noticed above no direction is being given with a view to regularise the petitioner. All that is said is that the petitioner’s services were brought to an end contrary to the provisions of Section 25F of the Act.
8. The other judgment of the Supreme Court in Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors., (1992-II-LLJ-452) is again distinguishable on the same reasoning given in Madhyamik Siksha Parishad, U.P. (supra).
9. The learned counsel for the bank has stated that in fact, no order of termination has been issued. This appears to be incorrect because in the communication dated February 20, 1991, it has been clearly indicated that the services of the petitioner would come to an end.
10. In this view of the matter the relationship of master and servant between the bank and the petitioner would be maintained. The petitioner would not be entitled to any backwages as the question whether petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere or not cannot be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner would be at liberty to seek back wages in such forum as may be available to him under law.
Disposed of accordingly.