The Municipal Council vs Ramdas Domaji Khadatkar and Others

R.K. Deshpande, J.

Heard learned counsels appearing for both the parties.

The respondent - employees, in these writ petitions, are the original complainants who had approached the Labour Court at Wardha by filing their separate complaints under Section 28 read with Item No. 1 of Schedule-IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, "the M.R.T.U. and P.U.L.P. Act") challenging their retrenchment from service w.e.f. 23.3.2004 and 8.5.2004. Both the Courts viz. the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have held that the complainants have completed 240 days of continuous service preceding the dates of their retrenchment from service and there is non-compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the I.D. Act, 1947"). It is on the basis of these findings that the complainants are directed to be reinstated in service with continuity, but the relief of back-wages have been turned down. Therefore, the employer the Municipal Council is before this Court in these writ petitions.

The completion of 240 days preceding the dates of retrenchment of the respondent complainants from service is not the fact which is disputed in view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below. The controversy revolves around non-compliance of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The orders of retrenchment from service were passed on 8.5.2004 and 23.3.2004 with immediate effect. The salaries in lieu of notices were paid to the respondent complainants along with Cheques towards retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The respondent complainants were tendered Cheques of Rs. 3,750/- and so on, towards retrenchment compensation.

It is not the case of the respondent complainants that the Cheques were presented for its realization in the Bank and they were dishonoured. The case of the respondent complainants is that when the Cheques were tendered at the counter of the Bank, the Clerk of the Bank returned the same on the ground that the said Cheques do not bear signatures of the President of Municipal Council though bear signatures of the Chief Officer of Municipal Council. It is also another ground stated that the Cheques do not bear the dates. It is, therefore, urged that since there was non-payment of retrenchment compensation, the termination has to be held as invalid.

It is not the case that the Cheques for retrenchment compensation tendered to the respondent complainants were of inadequate amount as was supposed to be given. It is also not the case that the salary in lieu of notices was not paid. It is not the case that the retrenchment compensation could not be paid by way of Cheques in the names of the complainants. It could not be ascertained as to whether the respondent complainants could get the amount towards retrenchment compensation for the reason that the respondent complainants did not deposit the Cheques in their Bank Accounts and there was no communication by the Bank that the Cheques were dishonoured. It is also not the case that the retrenchment compensation could not have been paid by way of Cheques.

In view of the aforesaid factual position, both the Courts below have committed an error of holding that the respondent complainants have proved violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947. The question remains that the Cheques were not deposited and the respondent complainants have not received the amount towards retrenchment compensation. Though the judgment and order passed by both the Courts below need to be set aside and the complaints are required to be dismissed, the petitioner - employer the Municipal Council is directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to each of the respondent complainants towards their retrenchment compensation inclusive of the interest accrued thereupon.

In the result, these writ petitions are allowed. The judgment and order, passed by the Labour Court at Wardha and the Industrial Court at Nagpur, are hereby quashed and set aside. The complaints are dismissed and the petitioner - employer the Municipal Council to pay a lump sum amount towards retrenchment compensation as directed by this Court within a period of ninety days from the date of approaching of the respondent complainants before it.

Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.