The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of employment amounted to retrenchment and was in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, justifying compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. The contentions of the petitioner are summarized as under:-

(a) The petitioner was appointed as a “peon” in place of his father on 01/01/2002.

(b) He was terminated from employment w.e.f. 01/03/2003.

(c) He had challenged his termination by filing complaint (U.L.P.) No.41/2003 before the Labour Court.

(d) By an interim order, he was directed to be reinstated.

(e) This order came to be modified in Revision (ULP) No.111/2003 and 75% of the last drawn wages were directed to be paid during the pendency of the complaint.

(f) Finally, the complaint (U.L.P.) No.41/2003 was allowed and the termination of the petitioner was held to be invalid w.e.f. 01/03/2003.

(g) However, compensation of Rs.25,000/- alongwith costs of Rs. 500/- was directed to be paid by the respondents in lieu of reinstatement of the petitioner.

(h) The petitioner, therefore, challenged the said judgment and order of the Labour Court dated 19/08/2005 by filing revision (U.L.P.) NO.63/2005.

(i) By judgment and order dated 01/08/2011, revision (U.L.P.) No. 63/2005 filed by the petitioner and revision (U.L.P.) No. 78/2005 filed by the respondents were dismissed.

(j) Order of 5th Labour Court, directing compensation in lieu of reinstatement was confirmed.

(k) The petitioner had worked continuously and in the uninterrupted service of the respondent from 01/01/2002 to 01/03/2003.

(l) His termination is a malafide act and the respondents have indulged in unfair labour practices.

(m) The termination is in violation of the provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(n) The compensation in lieu of reinstatement is unjustified and too meager to be accepted.

(o) The petitioner was working in place of his father as a peon and there is no justification in his termination from service.

3. Respondent No.1 opposed the petition by contending as follows:-

(a) The petitioner was never appointed as a permanent employee in place of his father.

(b) He was a temporary employee and his services were brought to an end as the appointment was neither approved nor legal.

(c) Since his appointment was illegal, the very appointment became void-ab-initio and therefore there was no reason to comply with section 25F, 25G and 25H of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

4. I find that the contentions of the respondents that because the petitioner was a temporary employee, section 25F was not required to be complied with despite he had completed one year of continuous employment, is neither logical nor acceptable. It is Trite Law that when an employee completes 240 days in the continuous and un-interrupted service of the employer as is the requirement u/s. 25B of the I.D. Act, 1947, his termination would amount to retrenchment and such termination in violation of Section 25F would amount to an invalid termination. The Law of retrenchment squarely applies in this situation.

5. In case of Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation Vs. Salimbhai Umarbhai Mansuri, reported at 2013 LLR 1042, the Apex Court has concluded that when the termination of an employee amounts to retrenchment, Section 25F would be applicable. It is only when the termination falls u/s 2(oo) (bb), it would amount to an exception to retrenchment. In the applicability of Section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25F, 25G and 25H would not be applicable. In the instant case, it is an admitted position that the petitioner had worked for 240 days in the continuous service of the respondents.

6. In the case of Assistant Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Sub Division, Kota Vs. Mohan Lal, reported at 2013 LLR 1009, the Apex Court has concluded that Section 25F is a condition precedent for payment of retrenchment compensation and one month’s notice or notice pay in lieu thereof if a workman has completed 240 days in continuous employment. Consequences of such non compliance may nor