The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 25 F (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the requirement to comply with the specified notice and compensation provisions in cases of retrenchment.

( 1 ) THE present petition is directed against the award dated 27th january, 2005 passed by the Labour Court whereunder it was held that the retrenchment of the petitioner workmen was not illegal and therefore they were not found entitled to any relief. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner workmen have assailed the impugned award and sought directions to the respondent management for reinstating them in service as Beldars w. e. f. 19th april, 2003, with full back wages and continuity of service along with consequential benefits, and for setting aside the notice dated 12th April, 1993 by which the petitioner workmen were asked to collect their dues/amount offered as retrenchment compensation.

( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the in January 1987, certain casual workers and regular workers of the respondent management went on an indefinite strike and thereafter filed a Writ Petition in the Supreme Court. Vide common judgment dated 26th September, 1989, the Supreme Court held that 243 casual workers be reinstated in accordance with the judgment and further directed the respondents therein to prepare a seniority list of the casual workers and also to formulate a Scheme of Regularization. All the petitioner workmen were working as muster roll Beldar w. e. f. 1985 with the respondent management.

( 3 ) DURING 1990-1992, 352 casual workers, both on Muster roll and office side were regularized and those who were not regularized, were found surplus according to need-based-assessment. Vide Notice dated 12th April, 1993, the respondent management declared 111 casual employees, including the petitioners herein, as surplus and ordered that their engagement shall cease on expiry of 7 days from the date of publication of notice w. e. f. 19th April, 1993 and no wages compensation in lieu of one month notice was paid to the petitioners on the said date. The petitioners raised an industrial dispute on the grounds that the respondent management had violated the provision of Section 25 F (a) and (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' ). On failure of conciliation proceedings, the matter was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication as per the following terms of reference: "whether the retrenchment of the workmen whose names appear in the Annexure "a" is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief are they entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect""

( 4 ) BASED on the pleadings of the parties, the issue formulated was as to whether the retrenchment of the petitioner workmen was illegal or unjustified. After taking into account the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and the evidence adduced by them, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the circumstances of the case are peculiar and known to the parties in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. It was held that under the law, the management had a right to immediately retrench the workmen by tendering one month salary in case of immediate retrenchment or after giving one month"s notice and that since in the present case, the management had not only given prior notice or information but had also offered something more than the retrenchment compensation, therefore there was no illegality in the order of termination of the services of the petitioner workmen. Accordingly, a no relief award was passed against the petitioner workmen, resulting in the filing of the present petition.

( 5 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner workmen urged that the order of retrenchment was illegal and unjustified since it was passed in violation of the provision of Section 25 F of the Act. It was submitted that the notice dated 12th April, 1993 was not in accordance with the mandatory requirement of Section 25f (a) as instead of a notice of 30 days or salary in lieu thereof, only a 7 days notice was issued by the respondent management which was not even served on them and no salary in lieu of notice