AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Mishra, J.—In these petitions, petitioners have assailed award passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal, by which, reinstatement has been ordered with 50% backwages.
Respondent No. 1 in each of the petitions was employed in the project run by the Family Planning Association of India. Each of them rendered the services for approximately 5 years. Their services were terminated on 31.12.1999. On dispute being raised, case was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Bhopal. The benefit of Provident Fund, Gratuity, Medical and Earned Leave was extended during the course of employment. The main work which was carried out related to family planning in the rural areas. It was submitted that retrenchment was made illegally. There was no good reason to dispense with the service. Project did not come to an end. Work was of permanent nature. Employer is continuing its activities. Several persons have been reinstated. Fresh appointments have also been made. Thus, it is a case of hire and fire.
In reply, it was contended that appointment was made for the particular project, which was as per the contract. The work has come to an end. Standard Standing Order is not applicable, as employer is not an industry, retrenchment compensation was paid. As such rule of last come first go was not applicable. None was appointed after removal.
The Labour Court on the basis of evidence has found that the employer''s activity is going on. 200 employees were removed in 1989. Out of them 152 were taken back in service. No reason was shown not to take back respondent No. 1 in service. It was not established that the work of the respondent No. 1 was not satisfactory. Thus, discrimination has been made. Retrenchment was also not made in accordance with law. It was not found established that the appointment was for a particular project. Contract was also not proved. Reinstatement was ordered with 50% backwages.
Shri Shobit Aditya, learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that retrenchment was made in accordance with law. It was a contractual appointment. Project had come to ah end, as such order of reinstatement is illegal. He has also submitted that grant of backwages to the extent of 50% is not proper. Considering financial crunch and facts of the case.
Shri Anoop Shrivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the employees submitted that retrenchment compensation was paid, offer was made to refund it in the course of conciliation proceedings. Provisions of Section 25-H has not been followed. He has further submitted that when 152 person were re-employed, respondents/employees were discriminated with. Their services were satisfactory. Project did not come to an end, as such the order passed by the Labour Court is proper.
After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I find that reinstatement has been ordered rightly by the Labour Court. 200 employees were removed. Out of them 152 were re-employed. No reason was shown why the respondents/employees were not re-employed. Section 25-H of the ID Act has not been followed. It was not established that the services of the respondents/employees were not satisfactory. Project did not come to an end, same activity is going on is also the finding recorded by the Labour Court. In the circumstances, retrenchment which was made, was uncalled for. Immediately 152 persons were re-employed, which also goes to show that the work did not come to an end as claimed. Reasons assigned for the retrenchment that the project came to an end was not established. Thus, the Labour Court has found that the retrenchment was illegal. No interference is called for so far as regards to the order of reinstatement is concerned.
Coming to the question of backwages; it is submitted by Shri Shobhit Aditya, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that financial crunch is faced and retrenchment compensation was also paid, which has not been refunded, in the circumstances, backwages be suitably reduced. As retrenchment compensation was paid, which has been retained by the respondents/employees, in my opinion, interest of justice would not suffer, in case instead of 50% backwages, payment of 30% of the backwages is ordered. With the above modification in the award passed by the Labour Court, Bhopal, writ petition is partly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.