A retrenched employee is an employee within the meaning of section 3 (13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and can apply for reinstatement to a Labour Court under sections 78 and 79 of the said Act.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - Retrenched Employee - Whether an employee within section 3 (13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and can apply for reinstatement to a Labour Court under sections 78 and 79 of the said Act.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners were employees who had been retrenched by their employers. They applied first to the Labour Court and then to the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay for reinstatement. The Industrial Tribunal had upon this question already taken a final decision in Appeal (IC) No. 34 of 1964 before them, in Soma Ramjee Varghode v. Shri Madhusudan Mills Ltd., Bombay1. In that decision the Tribunal had taken the view that a person who had been employed and subsequently retrenched after being given notice would not be deemed to be "an employee" under section 3 (13) of the Act. Therefore, when these two matters came before the Industrial Tribunal they merely relied upon their previous decision and dismissed the employees applications. Against these orders of the Industrial Tribunal the employees moved the two special civil applications and on the very question on which they were dismissed before the Industrial Tribunal there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges.
Finding of the Court:

A retrenched employee is an employee within section 3 (13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and can apply for reinstatement to a Labour Court under sections 78 and 79 of the said Act.
Issues: Whether a retrenched employee is an employee within section 3 (13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and can apply for reinstatement to a Labour Court under sections 78 and 79 of the said Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The definition of "employee" in section 3 (13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is wide enough to cover a retrenched employee. 2. The definition of "employee" in section 3 (13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 is not limited to persons who are employed at the time that the dispute arose. 3. A retrenched employee is a person who is employed at any time to do any skilled or unskilled work for hire or reward in any industry. 4. The provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, particularly the provisions of sections 35, 42, 78 and 79, indicate that a retrenched employee has the right to apply to a Labour Court for reinstatement.
Final Decision: The question referred to the Court is answered in the affirmative. A retrenched employee is an employee within section 3 (13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and can apply for reinstatement to a Labour Court under sections 78 and 79 of the said Act.

JUDGMENT

KOTVAL C. J.-A reference in both these special civil applications has been made because there was difference of opinion on an important and recurring question of law between Mr. Justice Tarkunde and Mr. Justice Bal. The question they have referred for our decision is as follows:

“Whether a retrenched employee is an employee within section 3 (13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and can apply for reinstatement to a Labour Court under sections 78 and 79 of the said Act?"

2. In both these special civil applications the petitioners were employees who had been retrenched by their employers. They applied first to the Labour Court and then to the Industrial Tribunal at Bombay for reinstatement. The Industrial Tribunal had upon this question already taken a final decision in Appeal (IC) No. 34 of 1964 before them, in Soma Ramjee Varghode v. Shri Madhusudan Mills Ltd., Bombay1. In that decision the Tribunal had taken the view that a person who had been employed and subsequently retrenched after being given notice would not be deemed to be "an employee" under section 3 (13) of the Act. Therefore, when these two matters came before the Industrial Tribunal they merely relied upon their previous decision and dismissed the employees applications. Against these orders of the Industrial Tribunal the employees moved the two special civil applications and on the very question on which they were dismissed before the Industrial Tribunal there was a difference of opinion between the two learned Judges.

3. How this difference of opinion arises may be briefly stated. The Bombay Industrial Relations Act by which these matters are governed at the material time defined the word "employee" as follows:

"3 (13) employee means any person employed to do any skilled or unskilled work for hire or reward in any industry, and includes-

(a) a person employed by a contractor to do any work for him in the execution of a contract with an employer -within the meaning of sub-clause (e) of clause (14) ;

(b) a person who has been dismissed or discharged from employment on account of any dispute relating to change in respect of which a notice is given or an application made under section 42 whether before or after his dismissal or discharge ;"

Subsequent to the arising of the present dispute between the employer and the employee this section has been materially amended so far as sub-clause (b) is concerned and instead of the words "dismissed or discharged" the following words have now been substituted: "dismissed, discharged or retrenched or whose services have been terminated" and at the end, instead of the words "after his dismissal or discharge" the following words have been instituted namely "dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or, as the case may be, termination from employment". These changes were incorporated into the Act by the Maharashtra Act 22 of 1965. In both these cases the retrenchment took place in the year 1963 so that the amendments will rot be attracted.

4. We may here also dispose of a point which was made in the course of the arguments based upon the amendment. It was urged that the fact that section 3 (13) was required to be amended by expressly adding the word "retrenched" shows that previously "retrenchment" was not included in section 3 (13). This may be so, but, on the other hand, it was urged on behalf of the employees that these amendments were incorporated only by way of abundant caution and that even previously an employee retrenched was included in the definition of "employee". Nothing therefore turns upon this submission based upon the amendments and we will have to examine the definition as it stood prior to the amendments independently of the amendments but in the context of the other provisions of the Act.

5. Long prior to these special civil applications, a Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Laxman v. The State Industrial Court at Nagpur2 had clearly taken the view that the definition of the word "employee" d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document