IMPORTANT POINT
Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is couched in wide language and is capable of application to all retrenched workmen, not merely those covered by Section 25-F, does not require curtailment of the ordinary meaning of the word retrenchment and it merely gives preference to a retrenched workman in the matter of re-employment over other persons.

Headnote:(i) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(oo), 25-H and 25-F-Rules 77 and 78-Re-employment of retrenched workmen u/s 25-H-Whether confined only to category of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F who have been in continuous service for not less than one year?-(No)-Meaning of expression retrenched workmen .
       Held : Section 25-H which is couched in wide language and is capable of application to all retrenched workmen, not merely those covered by Section 25-F. It does not require curtailment of the ordinary meaning of the word retrenchment used therein. The provision for re-employment of retrenched workmen merely gives preference to a retrenched workman in the matter of re-employment over other persons. It is enacted for the benefit of the retrenched workmen and there is no reason to restrict its ordinary meaning which promotes the object of the enactment without causing any prejudice to a better placed retrenched workman. (Para 10)
       Section 25-F does not restrict the meaning of retrenchment but qualifies the category of retrenched workmen covered therein by use of the further words workman..............who has been in continuous service for not less than one year . It is clear that Section 25-F applies to the retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year and not to any workman who has been in continuous service for less than one year; and it does not restrict or curtail the meaning of retrenchment merely because the provision therein is made only for the retrenchment of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year. (Para 9)
       Further held : It is no doubt true that persons who have been retrenched after a longer period of service which places them higher in the seniority list are entitled to be considered for re-employment earlier than those placed lower because of a lesser period of service. In this manner a workman falling in the lower category because of not being covered by Section 25-F can claim consideration for re-employment only if an eligible workman above him in the seniority list is not available. Application of Section 25-H to the other retrenched workmen not covered by Section 25-F does not, in any manner, prejudice those covered by Section 25-F because the question of consideration of any retrenched workman not covered by Section 25-F would arise only, if and when, no retrenched workman covered by Section 25-F is available for re-employment. There is, thus, no reason to curtail the ordinary meaning of retrenched workmen in Section 25-H because of Rules 77 and 78, even assuming the rules framed under the Act could have that effect. (Para 8)
       (ii) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Sections 2(oo), 25-H and 25-F-Re-employment of retrenched workmen-Respondents were employed for short periods between 1974 to 1976-Writ petition filed in 1982 to claim benefit of re-employment-Not maintainable-Lapse of long period of several years prior to filing of writ petition is sufficient to decline any relief to respondents.
       Held : All the retrenched workmen involved in the present case were employed for short periods between 1974 to 1976. It was only in 1982 that a writ petition was filed by them to claim this benefit. The other persons employed in the industry during the intervening period of several years have not been impleaded. Third party interests have arisen during the interregnum. These third parties are also workmen employed in the industry during the intervening period of several years. Grant of relief to the writ petitioners (respondents herein) may result in displacement of those other workmen who have not been impleaded in these proceedings, if the respondents have any claim for re-employment. The laches leading to the long delay after which the writ petition was filed in 1982 is sufficient to disentitle them to the grant of any relief in the writ petition. Moreover, there is not even a suggestion made or any material produced to show that on the construction we have made of Section 25-H, the respondents would be entitled to get any relief in the highly belated writ petition after the lapse of several years by way of preference over any person employed during the intervening period. In our opinion, this alone was sufficient for the High Court to decline any relief to them. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

J.S. Verma, J.-The short question is : whether the re-employment of retrenched workmen required by Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short the Act ) is confined only to the category of re-trenched workmen covered by Section 25-F who have been in continuous service for not less than one year? The controversy arises in view of the wide meaning of "retrenchment" given in its definition contained in Section 2(oo) of the Act to cover all kinds of terminations for any reason whatsoever. This wide meaning is settled by the decision of this Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh etc. etc. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh & Ors. etc. etc.1. On behalf of the appellant (employer) it is contended that the meaning given in the definition of retrenchment contained in Section 2(oo) is to be read subject to the context and the context in Section 25-H indicates that the word "retrenched" in Section 25-H has the same meaning as it has in Section 25-F and 25-G, reading Section 25-F along with Section 25-B since they all form a part of the same scheme in Chapter V-A of the Act.

2. It was argued by Shri Pai, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the object of providing for re-employment of retrenched workmen by enacting Section 25-H was merely to procide for the category of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F who had been in continuous service for not less than one year and not those who had served for a lesser period and to whom Section 25-F did not apply. The present case relates to workmen who admittedly do not fall in the category of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F since they had all worked for a much lesser period. For this reason, Shri Pai contended that this factor alone excludes the applicability of Section 25-H to the respondent (workmen) in the present case. The grant of relief to them by the High Court is challenged primarily on this ground. Alternatively, Shri Pai contended that the respondents were employed only for short periods between 1974 to 1976 and therefore, grant of relief to them in the Writ Petition filed long thereafter in 1982 is unjustified on the ground of laches as well as prejudice to the other workmen employed during the intervening period who are not impleaded. Shri Pai also referred to the Rules 77 and 78 of the industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (for short the Rules ) in support of his submission.

3. In reply Shri Ramachandran, learned counsel for the Respondents, contended that the wide meaning of the word retrenchment given in the definition contained in Section 2(oo) cannot be curtailed by the effect of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B since Section 25-F merely prescribes the conditions precedent for retrenchment of the workmen covered thereby and not all the retrenched workmen. He argued that there are no words of limitation in Section 25-H to confine its application only to the retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F. His reply to the alternative submission was that it is not a fit case to interfere with the limited relief granted by the High Court.

4. There is no dispute on facts and the question for decision is only one of construction, mainly of Section 25-H of the Act. The controversy relating to the meaning and scope of retrenchment defined in Section 2(oo) is settled by the decision of the Constitution Bench in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. (supra). It was held :

"While naturally and ordinarily it meant discharge of surplus labour, the defined meaning was termination of service of a workman for any reason whatsoever except those excluded in the definition itself."

The kind of termination of service of a workman excluded from the definition is specified in Clauses (a) to (c) and it is not disputed before us that none of these exceptions applies in the present case. Shri Pai argued the case on the basis that the termination of service of these workmen a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1996 Supreme(SC) 1147

Cases Referred (1)