AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Naolekar, J.—The respondent No. 1 Om Prakash Sharma, who was Class IV employee, was dismissed dispute was raised after 7 years of his termination and, therefore, the matter was referred to the labour court whether the industrial dispute can be referred after the delay of 7 years. The labour court passed an award dated 20.7.1995 holding that the reference can be made even after the delay of 7 years. After the reference is being answered by the labour court a second reference, was made on 11th Sept. 1995 referred the question for adjudication to the labour court whether the termination of the service of the respondent was in accordance with law. The labour court set-aside the order of termination and directed reinstatement. However the respondent No. 1 was granted only 60% of the back wages on account of the fact that the industrial dispute was raised after 7 years. Before the labour court the petitioner has raised several questions which are as under :
A. that there can not be a reference after the delay of 7 years. The submission was rejected on the ground that in a previous reference this question was already answered.
B. The second submission was made is in regard to the jurisdiction on the basis of Section 75 of the co-operative Societies Act but while arguing the matter that question was given up before the labour court.
C. The third submission was made before the labour court contending that the respondent being a temporary employee, his services can be terminated without following the procedure as laid down u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That question was also rejected by the labour court and the award as mentioned hereinabove was passed.
Aggrieved by the said award the present writ petition is filed.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the termination of the respondent No. 1, who being a temporary employee, can not be termed as a retrenchment and, thus, the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act; have no application.
u/s 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ''retrenchment'' means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action and which does not include as is being provided in Clause (a) (b) (bb) & (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act to which we are not concerned. Thus, any termination by the employer for whatever reasons shall be retrenchment irrespective of the nature of appointment unless the workman''s case falls within Section 2(oo), Clause (a)(b)(bb) & (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In the present case, admittedly, the respondent was a temporary employee whose services have been terminated without following the procedure laid down u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, The respondent being in employment, although, a temporary servant and worked for more than 240 days, termination of his service shall be ''retrenchment'' and that would require compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, which has not admittedly been done by the petitioner. That being the case, the order of termination of the service of the respondent was illegal and was rightly set-aside by the industrial court. For the delay caused in making the reference, the respondent No. 1 has already been denied 40% of back-wages. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the industrial, court. The writ petition is dismissed.