Termination of service due to old age infirmity does not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Kanhaiya Singh, J.

1. This is an application by Burra Kur Coal Co., Ltd. having its registered office at Dhanbad, for an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad (opposite party No. 2), dated 28th March, 1958. Azimuddin Ashraff (opposite party No. 1) was employed by the petitioner as Register-keeper of the colliery, and his services were terminated with effect from 26th April, 1957 by a letter which is in the following terms:

"xx xx xx

Dated 26th April, 1957.

* * * * * *

Shri Azimuddin Ashraff,

Register-keeper,

Katras-Choitodih Colliery.

It is regretted that it has become necessary to terminate your services as you have been found, after medical examination by our Chief Medical Officer, to be physically unfit to carry out your duties and there is no prospect in the foreseeable future of your becoming fit to do so."

The opinion of the Chief Medical Officer is as follows:--

" Very old and infirm. No organic disease. Unfit for active duties due to infirmity on account of old age.

The said, termination will take effect from today and you will be paid one months salary in lieu of notice in accordance with Standing Order paragraph 21.

Sd. Illegible.

Manager. -- Vide Annexure A.

Paragraph 21 of the Standing Order reads as follows: "For terminating employment whether, by the management or by an employee notice shall be given in writing by the party concerned. (a) One months notice for monthly paid staff.

(b) One weeks notice for weekly paid employees."

In accordance with aforesaid paragraph 21 Azimuddin was given one months salary in lieu of notice. A dispute was raised, and the Conciliation Officer, Dhanbad, after holding proceedings submitted his report to the Government. On this report, the Government of India declined to refer the dispute to an Industrial Tribunal and communicated their decision to Azimuddin by their letter dated 10th September, 1957, which omitting the portions not necessary, is in the following terms:

"Government of India,

Ministry of Labour and Employment.

No, LRU/55-2 (26 1/57, Dated New Delhi, the 10 Sep. 1957.

Subject: Alleged non-payment of retrenchment compensation to Shri Azlmuddin Ashraf Register Keeper, Katras Choitodin Colliery.

Sir,

In continuation of this Ministrys letter No. 55-2(26)/57, dated the 10th August, 1957 on the above subject, I am directed to inform you that the Government of India do not consider the above dispute fit for reference to an Industrial Tribunal lor adjudication for the reason that there is no question of injustice or unfairness or denial of rights involved in this case." -- Vide Annexure C.

The matter rested there, and no action was taken either by the workman or by the Conciliation Officer. It is alleged that all of a sudden the petitioner received a notification from the Government dated 11th December, 1957 to the effect that the dispute regarding the termination of service of opposite party No. 1 had been referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad, for adjudication. It will appear from the notification that the following two questions were referred to the Tribunal: "(i) Whether the services of Shri Azimuddin Ashraff, Register Keeper of Katras-Choitdih Colliery, were wrongfully terminated?

(ii) Whether he is entitled to reinstatement and or any compensation or any other relief?" -- Vide Annexure D.

On 20th March, 1958, the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, gave his award (vide Annexure E). The Tribunal has held that the termination of the ser vices of Azimuddin is tantamount to retrenchment, under Sec.2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and, therefore, the termination of his ser vices, without following the conditions precedent to retrenchment, as provided by Sec.25F of the Act, was illegal. He accordingly passed the following orders: Considering all the circumstances of the case, I think that this is a fit case where the company should be