Point of Law: Daily wage worker - Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen - Quantum of compensation - Termination of service of employee by way of retrenchment without complying with requirement of giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of S. 25-F (a) and (b) of I.D. Act, has effect of rendering action of employer as nullity and employee is entitled to continue in employment as if his service was not terminated.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.

This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.5982 of 2005.

2. A short question, which arises for consideration of this Court, reads thus:

“Whether the retrenchment of a workman without complying with the conditions in terms of Section 25-F (a) and (b) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, would automatically result in the reinstatement of the workman? ”

3. The facts necessary to decide the present Appeal, are as under:

The appellant was appointed as a `Senior Caretaker' on daily wage basis by respondent No. 2 with effect from 02.05.1998 at Government Beggar’s Home. His services were terminated by respondent No. 2 on 06.11.1999.

4. Being aggrieved by the said termination, the appellant filed U.L.P.A. bearing Complaint No. 740/1999 before the Labour Court, Nagpur. In the complaint, he has stated about rejection of his request for appointment on compassionate ground in place of his father, who had retired as a Class-IV employee with the respondents' department. However, he was given temporary appointment as a Senior Caretaker with effect from 02.05.1998. He worked till his termination, i.e., 06.11.1999. It is his case that his services have been terminated orally without complying with the mandate of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short “I.D. Act”).

5. The contesting respondent No.4, in his reply, denied all the adverse allegations in the complaint and stated that the appointment of the appellant was made purely on temporary basis and only a stop-gap arrangement at the relevant point of time, as the regular Caretaker Mr. B.K. Hadke was suspended and thereafter reinstated by an official order. As the services of the appellant were not required, he was terminated.

6. The Labour Court framed issues and recorded evidence as adduced by both the parties and after considering the material on record, allowed the complaint and resultantly, the appellant was reinstated with full back wages. The Revisional Court/Industrial Court, however, set-aside the judgment and order of the Labour Court, and remanded the matter for reconsideration in accordance with law. The Labour Court then reconsidered the matter and dismissed the Complaint vide judgment and order dated 06.05.2004 especially on the ground that the case of the complainant/appellant falls under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act, as he was appointed on daily wage basis temporarily as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Exhibit 38 by the respondent. It is further observed that the complainant/appellant has also given a `Pratigya Patra' that the services shall be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons. According to the learned Judge, as the termination of the complainant/appellant falls under Section 2(oo)(bb) of the I.D. Act, there was no need to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the I.D. Act while terminating the services of the complainant/appellant. The judgment and order of the Labour Court was further upheld in Revision Application No.68/2004 before the Industrial Court, Nagpur, vide judgment and order dated 19.07.2005.

7. The appellant assailed the said judgment by filing Writ Petition bearing No.5982 of 2005. The learned Single Judge in this Writ petition observed that there was no material on record to hold that the provisions of Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the I.D.Act were attracted. The facts disclosed by the petitioner himself show that he was aware that he had no right to remain in employment and that he had not worked on any sanctioned vacant post. By referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors. [AIR 2006 SC 1806], the learned Single Judge observed that the Labour Court could not have given the relief of reinstatement to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge didn’t find any jurisdictional error or perversity in