Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the appellants’ stand about applicability of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’) was not correct.

2. Controversy lies within a narrow compass.

3. Appellants were employees of the Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesales Stores Limited (in short the ‘CONFED’), fourth respondent herein. The service conditions of its employees are covered by CONFED Staff Service Rules, 1975 (in short the ‘Rules’). On account of continued financial losses, a restructuring plan for gainful employment for employees was prepared. It was noted that Retail Outlets (in short the ‘ROL’) were causing huge loss to the organization. Therefore, it was decided that all ROL should be closed being financially non-viable. Retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25-F of the Act was paid. In the retrenchment order it was specifically stated as follows:

“It is made clear that employees of CONFED from where the retrenchment is being effected are not covered by Chapter V-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947