Termination of employment found illegal due to lack of due process; procedural adherence under the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory, leading to reinstatement or monetary compensation.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition has been filed for setting aside Award dated 14^th March 2016, passed by the Labour Court, Karkardooma, in Industrial Disputes Case No. 328/2011.

2. The impugned award holds that the retrenchment/ termination of services of the respondent/ workman was illegal and against the principles of natural justice. The retrenchment/ termination of the respondent/ workman was held to be violative of Section(s) 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘ID Act’).

3. The respondent/ workman was granted the relief of reinstatement along with all consequential benefits, from the date of his termination i.e. 28^th April 2006.

4. The present petition was filed challenging the said award. Notice was issued by the Court and a stay was granted on 22^nd December 2016.

Factual Background

5. Respondent was appointed as a Daily Wage Junior Assistant vide letter dated 5^th January 1996, issued by the Regional Office of the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘CBSE’), for a period of eighty-nine (89) days.

6. On 28^th April 2006 the respondent/ workman was terminated from his services. On 10^th October 2011 a reference was made by the Labor Commissioner regarding the claim filed by the respondent/ workman, challenging his termination.

7. On 28^th February 2012, the following issues were framed in ID No. 328/2011:

(i) Whether the claimant has rendered continuous service of 240 days or more in preceding twelve months from the date of termination of his services, as contemplated by Section 25B of the ID Act?

(ii) Whether the act of terminating services of the claimant amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) of the ID Act?

(iii) Whether the act of the management in terminating services of the claimant is violative of provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the ID Act?

(iv) As in terms of reference.

8. Upon passing of the impugned award on 14^th March 2016, the present petition was filed, challenging the same. An application under Section 17B of the ID Act was allowed by this Court vide order dated 15^th January 2020, the petitioner/ Board was directed to pay last-drawn wages /minimum wages, from the 7^th of every month from the date of filing of the application. During the course of hearing the respondent/workman stated that he had been unemployed ever since.

Submissions on behalf of petitioner

9. Ms. Manisha Singh, Counsel for the petitioner, in support of the challenge to the impugned award, submitted as under:

9.1 Respondent did not render 240 days of continuous service in any calendar year, which is a statutory/ mandatory requirement under Section 25F ID Act.

9.2 The appointment was not for a continuous job; respondent/ workman was only required for examination duty, and therefore, provisional appointment was only for a period of eighty-nine (89) days.

9.3 Respondent/ workman was terminated as he was found indulging in suspicious activities inter alia tampering of answer-sheets. Petitioner/ Board was apprised of the same on 28^th April 2006. Services of respondent/ workman were discontinued with effect from 28^th April 2006.

9.4 Respondent/ workman was aware of the consequences of discontinuance of service, yet, neither did he ever protes