JUDGMENT - M.S. DESHPANDE, J.:---By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, challenges the order dated 2nd March, 1981 discharging him from his employment without payment of compensation under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and seeks reinstatement with backwages.

2. The petitioner was appointed on 22nd August, 1966 as a Clerk with the State Bank of India. He was charge sheeted on 23rd April, 1979, the charges being that he had is collusion with a borrower induced the Manager of Digras Branch of the State Bank of India to grant advances to various relations and servants of that borrower and for these advances, the borrower Shri Rathod was the guarantor, the object of the petitioner being to advance the interests of the said Shri Rathod. The second charge was that he had accepted gratification from various borrowers for arranging to have their loans sanctioned. The petitioner filed his reply on April 30, 1979 and the Enquiry Officer made a report after holding the enquiry that the charges were partly established. A notice to show cause why the petitioner's services should not be terminated was issued on 7th January, 1980 and after considering the petitioner's reply dated 4th February, 1980, an order came to be passed on 2nd of March, 1981 by the respondent No. 2 Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Region VII, Nagpur. The order was to the effect that the charges against the petitioner had been proved and on account of the gravity of misconduct a decision was taken to dismiss the petitioner from the Bank's service, but, after considering the petitioner's age and for giving him an opportunity to rehabilitate himself in life, a lenient view was taken and so he was discharged from the bank's employment with effect from the date of receipt of the letter. He was to be paid one month's salary and allowances in lieu of notice. The petitioner appealed to the respondent No. 1 who by the order dated 22nd September, 1981, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner challenged these orders on various grounds. However, by an amendment ground No. XI came to be incorporated in the petition and this ground alone is being pressed to the exclusion of all the other grounds raised in the petition, the contention briefly being that an order of discharge made in pursuance of clause 10(c) of para 521 of Sastry Award does not amount to a discliplinary action and would therefore come within the purview of "retrenchment" as defined in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it was therefore obligatory on the respondents to pay compensation as contemplated by section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It was urged that since this was not done, the action taken against the petitioner was illegal and he was entitled to be reinstated with full backwages.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute that action as contemplated under para 521 of the Sastry Award was taken, but he contended that in view of the amendment in the definition of "retrenchment" in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, by incorporating a new clause (bb) the position is that the termination of the service of the workmen as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein, would be excluded form the definition of `retrenchment' and therefore, the termination would be valid. It was also urged that this amendment was declaratory of the law as it stood earlier and would be retrospective in its operation and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to any relief.

4. On the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the amendment incorporated by clause (bb) in section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act was remedial in nature and would operate only prospectively and since the amendment came to be incorporated w.e.f. 18-8-1984, it would no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document