Back
High Court Of Delhi
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
RAMJAS COLLEGE - Appellant
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER - Respondents
WP (C) 2772 Of 1999
Decided On : 02/08/2007
retrenchment - Labour Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, Section 2(oo), Section 25(F), Section 25(H) - The court discussed the interpretation of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act and its application to the case. It highlighted key legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing that the respondent's termination did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) as it was for a specific period and co-terminus with the selection of a permanent post. The court also referenced relevant case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a laboratory attendant, was terminated after completing more than 240 days of service. The Labour Court directed reinstatement with full back wages, citing violation of Section 25(F) and Section 25(H) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's termination did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) as it was for a specific period and co-terminus with the selection of a permanent post. It also held that Section 25(H) was not violated as the respondent's junior was competent and the college followed the recruitment procedure.
Issues: Interpretation of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, applicability of Section 25(F) and Section 25(H), and whether the respondent's termination constituted retrenchment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondent's termination did not amount to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)(bb) as it was for a specific period and co-terminus with the selection of a permanent post. It also found that Section 25(H) was not violated as the respondent's junior was competent and the college followed the recruitment procedure.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the award of the Labour Court was set aside.
( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this writ petition are that the respondent was appointed by the petitioner college as laboratory Attendant on ad-hoc basis for a period of three months vide an appointment letter dated 7. 8. 1989. The appointment was extended from time for time for three months every time purely on ad-hoc basis and lastly the respondent was appointed vide letter dated 22. 11. 1990 w. e. f. 21. 11. 1990 for a period of three months or till the Selection Committee meets, whichever was earlier. The workman was relieved on 20. 2. 1991 after the expiry of period of three months. Selection Committee met on 23rd March, 1991 at 10. 00 a. m. and all eligible candidates were called for interview. The respondent had also applied for the post on regular basis. Out of 29 candidates, who appeared for the interview, the Selection Committee selected six candidates as per the vacancies against permanent posts. Respondent No. 2, who could not be selected for the post on regular basis raised an industrial dispute about his wrongful dismissal which was referred to the Labour Court in following terms:
"whether the services of Shri Avinash Dass have been terminated illegally and/or unjustifiably by the management and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect. "
( 3 ) THE Labour Court came to the conclusion that since the respondent had completed more than 240 days of service before his termination the petitioner was liable to pay retrenchment compensation with one month's notice or notice pay in lieu thereof. Since, the same was not paid the case of the respondent was covered under Section 25 (F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and the retrenchment of the respondent was illegal and contrary to law. On this ground, the Labour Court was of the opinion that termination of any workman on whatsoever ground except those excluded under Section 2 (oo), amounted to retrenchment of the workman and since, the case of the respondent workman was not covered under any of the exceptions and 240 days had been completed there was no escape from the conclusion that it was a case of retrenchment without following provisions of Section 25 (F ). The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the workman was employed by the management from 10,10. 1989 to 20. 2. 1991, the management had not given any reason why he was not appointed at the permanent post despite the post being available. The management subsequent to the termination of the respondent had filled up the posts of the Laboratory attendant in the college. It was bound to reemploy the respondent under provisions of Section 25 (H) of the I. D. Act. The Labour Court, therefore, directed the respondent to be reinstated with full back wages.
( 4 ) I consider that the award of the Labour Court is per se perverse and is liable to be set aside for the following reasons.
( 5 ) THE case of the respondent was not covered under Section 2 (oo)of the I. D. Act. Section 2 (oo)of the I. D. Act reads as under:
" (oo) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipu
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
