JUDGMENT - CHANDRACHUD D.Y. (Dr.), J.:—The petitioner joined the respondents on 15th April, 1992 as an accountant and was confirmed on 7th August, 1992. The services of the petitioner were terminated on 11th September, 1995. The petitioner challenged the order of termination in a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 on the ground inter alia that the retrenchment compensation had not been correctly computed and that therefore the order of retrenchment was void. In the circumstances, it was alleged that the employer was guilty of an unfair labour practice under Items 1(b), 1(d) and 1(f) of Schedule IV to the Act. The respondent employer denied in the written statement that the retrenchment compensation was not correctly computed.

2. On 11th January, 1996 the petitioner made an application for production of documents. According to the petitioner, the employer did not produce those documents, but by a reply dated 15th April, 1996 gave the break up of the retrenchment compensation. On 8th July, 1996, the petitioner filed a statement before the Industrial Court indicating how on the basis of the break up furnished by the employer the retrenchment compensation was not correctly computed since the House Rent Allowance had not been included while making the computation. On 26th July, 1996, the employer admitted that the retrenchment compensation had been not correctly computed and that an amount of Rs. 259/- had been paid less.

3. The labour Court by its judgment and order dated 2nd September, 1996 granted reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. In a revision filed by the employer the Industrial Court, however, modified this order by directing the employer to pay an amount of Rs. 259/- which had fallen short together with litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-. The order for reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service was set aside.

4. Before the Court it is common ground that the employer reinstated the petitioner on 9th September, 1996 in compliance with the order of the Labour Court, but once again the services of the workman were terminated on 19th September, 1996. The subsequent termination of service has been challenged in a complaint of unfair labour practice under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The complaint, it has been stated before the Court, was dismissed in default. Counsel for the petitioner states on instructions that an application for restoration has been filed. The only question which now survives at this stage is whether the petitioner is entitled to his backwages for the period between the date of the original order of termination (11th September, 1995) and the second termination (19th September, 1996). It is common ground that the employer has deposited the entire amount of backwages computed at Rs. 34,000/- before the Industrial Court.

5. In the present case, the admitted position is that the employer had not included the House Rent Allowance in computing the retrenchment compensation that was required to be paid under section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 25-F, it is well settled, lays down a requirement which is mandatory. In the absence of compliance with the provisions thereof the order an retrenchment is void ab initio. In (Auro Engg. Pvt. Ltd. v. R.A. Gadekar)1, 1992(Supp.) Bom.C.R. 367, Mr. Justice B.N. Srikrishna (as the learned Judge then was) speaking for this Court held thus:

"It is settled law that section 25-F of the Act was introduced into the statute book by Parliament as a measure of amelioration. The section is specifically intended to soften the blow of unemployment which would fall upon a workman, who is suddenly deprived of his source of livelihood. Considering the constraints on the economy of the country as a whole and that of the industrial units, parliament has limited this amelioration to what is specifical

Click Here to Read the rest of this document