IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Where workman was appointed on daily wages and he had not completed 240 days, his retrenchment did not require compliance of provision of Section 25H of the Act.
2. Violation of Section 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act would not by itself would mean that Labour Court should pass an award of reinstatement with back wages as jurisdiction u/s 11A of the Act must be exercised judiciously.

Headnote:(i) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25F - Retrenchment - Respondent was appointed on daily wages and he had not completed 240 days in twelve months preceding termination - Appellant was not required to comply provision of Section 25F of the Act.
       Held : The fact that Respondent was appointed on daily wages and he has not completed 240 days, is not in dispute. Retrenchment of Respondent by Appellant, therefore, did not require compliance of the provisions of Section 25F of the Act.(Para 8)
       (ii) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 11A, 25G and 25H - Daily wager - Only when a daily wager was employed in a particular category of workman, a seniority list was required to be maintained in terms of Rule 77 of Rules - Respondent was appointed on daily wage basis from Sept., 1986 to June 1987 and his services were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-7-1987 - Labour Court held termination was not legal as appellant-management failed to comply with requirements contained in Section 25G of the Act and also Section 25H thereof and directed reinstatement with back wages - High Court upheld award - Appeal - Continuous work in terms of Section 25B of the Act was not necessary in so far as statutory requirements u/s 25G and 25H of the Act were concerned - Even if there was violation of Section 25G and 25H of the Act same by itself would not mean that Labour Court should pass award of re-instatement with back wages - Respondent had not worked regularly and job was not of perennial nature - Since services were terminated in 1987, it would not be proper to direct reinstatement with back wages - Compensation of Rs.75,000/- would meet ends of justice.
       Held : Section 25G introduces the rule of last come first go. It is not a rule which is imperative in nature. The said rule would be applicable when a workman belongs to a particular category of workman. An employer would, in terms thereof, is ordinarily required to retrench the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category. However, for reasons to be recorded, the employer may retrench any other workman. Section 25H provides for re-employment of retrenched workman, which will apply in case where the employer proposes to take into employment any person, an opportunity has to be given to him to offer himself for re-employment.(Paras 9 and 10)
       The State of Rajasthan has framed Rules in regard to the manner in which the seniority of workmen in a particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated, should be maintained. It, however, pre-supposes that a daily-wager would fall in a particular category of workman. Only when a daily-wager is employer in a particular category of workman, a seniority list is required to be maintained in terms of Rule 77 of the Rules. We may, however, do not intend to lay down any law in this behalf as it is not necessary for the purpose of this case. In an appropriate case, this Court may have to consider the question of justification of giving extended meaning to the terms retrenchment and industry.(Para 23)
       We would, therefore, proceed on the basis that there had been a violation of Sections 25G and 25H of the Act, but, the same by itself, in our opinion, would not mean that the Labour Court should have passed an Award of re-instatement with entire back wages. This Court time and again has held that the jurisdiction under Section 11A must be exercised judiciously. The workman must be employed by a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, having regard to the doctrine of public employment. It is also required to recruit employees in terms of the provisions of the rules for recruitment framed by it. Respondent had not regularly served Appellant. The job was not of perennial nature. There was nothing to show that he, when his services were terminated any person who was junior to him in the same category, had been retained. His services were dispensed with as early as in 1987. It would not be proper to direct his reinstatement with back wages. We, therefore, are of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served if instead and in place of re-instatement of his services, a sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded to Respondent by way of compensation as has been done by this Court in a number of its judgments.(Para 28)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.

2. Appellant herein is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is created under the Jaipur Development Authority Act. Respondent was appointed on daily-wage basis from September, 1986 to June, 1987. His services were dispensed with, with effect from 1.7.1987. He raised an industrial dispute and on receipt of failure report dated 26.4.1988 of the Conciliation Officer, the Government of Rajasthan made a reference for adjudication of the following dispute to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Jaipur, in exercise of its power under Section 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 :

"Whether termination of service of workman Shri Ramsahai s/o Chhotu through Shri M.F. Beg Labour Welfare Centre, near Mayank Cinema, Station Road, Jaipur w.e.f. 1.7.87 by the Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur and the Garden Specialist, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur is reasonable and legal. If not then to what relief and amount the workman is entitled to receive?"

3. By reason of an Award dated 22.3.1999, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court held that the termination of services of the workman was not legal. He was directed to be reinstated in service with full back-wages. It was held :

"The termination of workman Ramsahai son of Shri Chhotu Ram by the respondents w.e.f. 1.7.87 is not reasonable and legal. He is reinstated back in service. His continuity in service is maintained, and from the date of his termination till the date of award he is awarded all back wages along with other benefits which he would have received while in continuous service and from the date of award the workman shall receive the wages and other benefits which other similarly situated workmen junior to him are receiving today."

4. A writ petition was filed by the appellant before the High Court of Rajasthan, which was marked as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6863 of 1993. The said writ petition was dismissed. A Letters Patent Appeal filed thereagainst has also been dismissed by a Division Bench of the said Court. The Labour Court in its Award, inter alia, held that the respondent has not been in continuous service for a period of 240 days with twelve months immediately preceding his termination stating :

"....In this way the applicant workman under the respondents/management has not completed one year continuous service according to the definition of one year continuous service as contemplated under section 25(B) of the Act. Therefore the Issue No.1 is decided in favour of the respondents/management against the applicant."

5. It was further held that the plea of the appellant herein that he had abandoned his services is not correct. It was further held that the termination of the workman does not come within the purview of any of the exceptions contemplated under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act, for short). It was however, opined that the appellant failed to comply with the requirements contained in Section 25G of the Act read with Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958 (the Rules, for short) as also Section 25H thereof.

6. Mr. S.K. Bhattacharya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that the recruitment and termination of Respondent being on daily-wage basis, Sections 25G and 25H of the Act have no application in the instant case. It was further submitted that workman having voluntarily abandoned his services, the Labour Court wrongly opined that he was retrenched from service.

7. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would submit that Sections 25G and 25H of the Act stand on a different footings, vis-a-vis, 25F thereof, in so far as, for the purpose of invoking the said provisions, it is not necessary that the workman must complete a continuous service of 240 days within a period of twelve calendar months preceding the order of termination as envisaged unde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1025

Cases Referred (3)