Non-compliance with statutory provisions of Section 25-F(a) and Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 renders retrenchment void-ab-initio.

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

W.P.(C) 2656/2014 & CM No. 5525/2014

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the award dated February 23, 2011 passed by the Labour Court in Computer Identification No. 02402C0005711999 dated February 23, 2011 whereby the Labour Court has answered the reference holding the retrenchment of the respondent as void-ab-initio and granted to the respondent, continuity in service with all consequential benefits and reliefs with simple interest @ 6% per annum.

2. The Industrial Dispute was referred on the following terms:

“Whether the retrenchment from services of Sh. Daya Nand is illegal and/or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect”.

3. According to the respondent in his claim petition, he was working as a “Rent Collector (LDC)” with the petitioner w.e.f. October 01, 1979 and his services were illegally terminated on November 30, 1998 after serving a notice of retrenchment on him.

4. The petitioner admitted the facts as narrated above by the respondent in his claim petition.

5. The following issue was framed by the Labour Court: “To what relief, if any, is the workman entitled against the management in terms of reference”.

6. The Labour Court, inter alia, was of the following conclusion:

That his retrenchment is in violation of statutory provisions of Section 25-F (a) and Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act, in short). Further, it was also the conclusion that the petitioner had not placed anything on record to show that it had complied with the requirements of Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Central Rules (Rules in short).

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would at the outset, submitted that the petitioner has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the writ petition. According to him, the award is dated February 23, 2011 and the delay has been properly explained in the said application, and delay be condoned. On merit, it was his contention that the petitioner did comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Merely because House Rent Allowance, which forms a part of the wages as defined under the Act, to be given as compensation under Section 25-F of the Act, has not been given, the same would not mean that the retrenchment would be bad. He would state that the petitioner is ready to pay the difference of amount, which was required to be paid under Section 25-F of the Act. He would further submit that the Labour Court has committed an error by not going into the reasons for retrenchment of the respondent by the petitioner. Further, he has taken me to the deposition of the respondent himself, wherein, according to him, the respondent has conceded to the fact that the persons junior to him have also been retrenched along with him. Lastly, he would submit that the Labour Court has erred in not directing the payment of Rs. 1,04,470/- given to the respondent at the time of retrenchment in the year 1998. In other words, the respondent stands to gain inasmuch as, he having received the compensation under Section 25-F of the Act, has also got the award of the reinstatement with continuity in service and all consequential benefits, which is impermissible.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent, who has appeared on caveat, vehemently argued that this Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which also is equitable in nature, would like to dismiss the petition at the threshold as the petition is premised on misleading facts and further dishonest submissions. He would state that no application for condonation of delay is maintainable. Being a writ petition, the petitioner has to satisfy that the petition has been filed without any delay and laches. Even otherwise, according to him, the application seeking condonation of delay is bereft of averments which would justify the delay. In support