1. Retrenchment of an employee without following Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act despite completing over 240 days of service annually for several years. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1807
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.N.Variava : S.R.Babu
Deep Chandra
Versus
State Of U.P.
Case No. : 4588 of 1999
Date of Decision : 11/14/00
Important Points
Termination of an employee who has completed 240 days of service in each year is illegal if the procedure under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not followed, necessitating reinstatement on the same terms and conditions.
Subject
Labour Law - Industrial Disputes
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Industrial Disputes Act - Section 25-F - Retrenchment of employee - Employee having completed more than 240 days of service in each year for several years - Termination without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F is bad - If there is a violation of the statutory procedure, the employee must be reinstated in original service on the same terms and conditions in which they were working earlier. (Para 2)
(B) Scope of interference by High Court - High Court cannot ignore the violation of statutory procedure under Section 25-F when an employee has completed the requisite period of service - Interference with the award of the Labour Court is not justified if the termination is found to be in violation of the Act. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An employee who had put in more than 240 days of service in each year from 1982 to 1988 was retrenched without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court found the termination bad, noting that persons employed subsequent to the appellant were continuing in service, and awarded reinstatement with back-wages and consequential benefits. The High Court subsequently quashed this award, focusing on whether the worker was casual and if the award would make the employee permanent.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred by ignoring the central point of law regarding the violation of Section 25-F. The court found that the High Court's approach was a tangent and failed to recognize that the statutory procedure for retrenchment must be followed when an employee has completed the required days of service.
Issues: Whether the services of an employee who has completed more than 240 days of service in each year for several years can be terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an employee has completed more than 240 days of service in each year and is retrenched without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, such termination is illegal, and the employee is entitled to be reinstated in service on the same terms and conditions.
Result: Appeal allowed.
(B) Scope of interference by High Court - High Court cannot ignore the violation of statutory procedure under Section 25-F when an employee has completed the requisite period of service - Interference with the award of the Labour Court is not justified if the termination is found to be in violation of the Act. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An employee who had put in more than 240 days of service in each year from 1982 to 1988 was retrenched without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court found the termination bad, noting that persons employed subsequent to the appellant were continuing in service, and awarded reinstatement with back-wages and consequential benefits. The High Court subsequently quashed this award, focusing on whether the worker was casual and if the award would make the employee permanent.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred by ignoring the central point of law regarding the violation of Section 25-F. The court found that the High Court's approach was a tangent and failed to recognize that the statutory procedure for retrenchment must be followed when an employee has completed the required days of service.
Issues: Whether the services of an employee who has completed more than 240 days of service in each year for several years can be terminated without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an employee has completed more than 240 days of service in each year and is retrenched without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, such termination is illegal, and the employee is entitled to be reinstated in service on the same terms and conditions.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the termination of a worker's services is permissible without following statutory retrenchment procedures when the worker has completed the requisite period of service. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. The High Court erred by ignoring the statutory requirements of Section 25-F and focusing on the employee's status rather than the legality of the termination procedure. (Para 2 )
4. Violation of the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act necessitates reinstatement of the employee in original service on the same terms and conditions. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Labour Court award granting reinstatement with back-wages and consequential benefits restored. (Para 2 )
6. What is the legal consequence of terminating an employee without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act?
If the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is violated, the employee must be reinstated in their original service on the same terms and conditions as they were working earlier. (Para 2 )
7. Can an employee who has worked over 240 days annually for several years be terminated without following Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act?
No. The court held that when an employee has put in service for more than 240 days in each year for several years, their services cannot be put to an end without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F. (Para 2 )
S.RAJENDRA BABU, J.
(1) THIS appeal is directed against an order made by the High Court quashing the award made by the Labour Court. A dispute was raised by the appellant on the ground that though he had put in more than 240 days in each year of service from the year 1982 to 1988, he had been retrenched without following the procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal, therefore, on adjudication came to the conclusion that termination of service of the appellant is bad and in particular noticed that persons who had been employed subsequent to the appellant have been continuing in service, whereas the services of the appellant had been put to an end to. In the circumstances the Labour Court made an award granting the reinstatement with back-wages and other consequential benefits that may flow from it. Writ petition was filed against the order before the High Court.
(2) THE High Court approached the matter rather strangely as it went at a tangent to consider not only whether the casual workers services can be put to an end to but if the award made by the Labour Court would make him permanent employee, so on and so forth. The High Court lost sight of the point in issue that is, when an employee had put in service for more than 240 days in each year for several years whether his services can be put to an end this is the position in law, we fail to understand to without following the procedure prescribed as to how the High Court could have interfered under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes with the award made by the Labour Court. We Act. If there has been violation thereof such an set aside the order made by the High Court and employee will have to be reinstated in his 5 restore the award made by the Labour Court. original service on the same terms and The appeal is allowed accordingly. conditions in which he was working earlier. If this is the position in law, we fail to understand as to how the High Court could have interfered with the award made by the Labour Court. We set aside the order made by the High Court and 5 restore the award made by the Labour Court. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
