AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajendra Menon and T.K. Kaushal, JJ.—Shri Anoop Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Samdarshi Tiwari, learned GA for Respondent No, 1.
Challenging an award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2, Bhopal vide Annexure-Pl in I.D. Reference Case No. 15/2000, refusing to grant consequential benefits of reinstatement and back-wages, inspite of the fact that the retrenchment is found to be illegal, petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Records indicate that petitioner was engaged in the Respondent''s School as a Peon on 10.9.1986, he continued to work upto 1.9.1988. When his services were brought to an end, inter alia contending that he has completed one year continuous service as contemplated u/s 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, his termination which amounts to retrenchment and the same having been brought up without following the mandate of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal, petitioner filed an application u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act with regard to his termination. The conciliation proceedings took place and when the conciliation failed, the matter was referred to the Labour Court and on the basis of the material available on record, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the termination of services of the employee amounts to retrenchment and it is an illegal retrenchment. However, instead of granting the consequential benefits or compensation in lieu of retrenchment, the Labour Court has only directed to pay one month''s salary, it seems that the Labour Court was carried away by the delay caused by the workman in raising the dispute and, therefore, the award was passed directing for payment of retrenchment compensation and one month''s salary. It is a settled principle of law that when the retrenchment is done, the same has to be as per the statutory and mandatory conditions contemplated u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and if the conditions stipulated therein are not followed, the retrenchment is illegal. In the light of the aforesaid principle, if the services of the petitioner is terminated by way of retrenchment and the mandatory conditions stipulated u/s 25F were not followed, as a result the retrenchment was unsustainable and cannot be upheld, therefore, it was illegal. Once the termination by way of retrenchment is found to be illegal, the consequential benefits should have been granted to the petitioner and on the ground of delay in raising the dispute, the appropriate relief could not be denied by way of compensation in lieu of retrenchment and after holding retrenchment/ termination to be illegal, the Labour Court could not regularise the retrenchment by directing payment of one month''s salary. The mandate and procedure contemplated u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is a condition precedent to be undertaken before retrenchment is effected. Once the mandate is to follow the procedure before the retrenchment, it has been held that complying with the procedure after retrenchment will be illegal. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court committed error by regularizing the retrenchment by directing payment of one month''s salary and compensation in lieu of retrenchment. Once the Labour Court has held the termination amounts to retrenchment and the same to be illegal, the reinstatement of the petitioner''s services should have been ordered and if reinstatement is not possible, adequate compensation in lieu of reinstatement should have been granted. However, if on delay in raising the dispute, the Labour Court found that complete relief could not be granted, the Labour Court had to record reasons and then curtail the benefit of payment of back-wages, the same having not been done. We deem it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Labour Court to reconsider the matter afresh.
Keeping in view the observations made hereinabove, this petition is allowed. The award Annexure-Pl dated 7.9.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer Labour Court No. 2 Bhopal so far as it pertains to grant of relief to the petitioner is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Labour Court to reconsider the question of grant of relief to the petitioner. Accordingly, on the parties appearing before the Labour Court along with certified copy of this order, the Labour Court shall decide the matter within a period of three months'' thereof.
With the aforesaid, petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.