Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA, J.
The Management Of Assam State Textile Corpn. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Assam and Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) 127 of 2012
Decided on : 21-04-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.A Sarma Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.K.P. Sarma
Point of Law: Section 2 (oo) of the Act of 1947 defines retrenchment to mean 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 voluntary retirement of the workman or retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation or 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 or the termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill health.
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 10, 25-F, (b), (c), 2 (oo) - Service - Workmen - Dismissed From Services - Whether Management of Assam State Textile Corpn.Ltd. was justified in dismissing 8 workmen from their service - Whether they are entitle to re-instatement in service with full back wages and other benefit - Whether Management of petitioner Assam State Textile Corporation Limited was justified in dismissing 8 numbers of workmen from their services - Whether workmen are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits.
Finding of the Court :
Court is in disagreement with said conclusion arrived at by learned Labour Court in its impugned award - If respondents were prima facie dismissed from their services i.e. termination of services by way of a punishment, it cannot be said that such termination was by way of retrenchment - In instant case, as it has already been concluded that nature of termination of services of respondent workmen were not in terms with provisions of Section 2(oo) of Act of 1947, therefore, Court is of view that even procedure prescribed under Section 25-F of Act of 1947 is not required to be followed in present manner - It is another matter that for effecting an order or notice of dismissal from service, a particular procedure has to be followed or that such decision should be made by giving reasons good enough to justify a dismissal - As reference made before learned Labour Court was whether the Management of petitioner Assam Textile Corporation Limited was justified in dismissing eight respondent workmen, Court find that in impugned award of learned Labour Court in reference case said question had neither been considered nor been determined - Court have noticed that dismissal is of year and it is a writ petition of year - Meaning thereby that considerable time had elapsed since dismissal of workmen - Accordingly, Court request learned Labour Court to adjudicate dispute as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from date of receipt of record.
Result: Petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A Jahid, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J K Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent no. 1 being the authorities under the Labour & Employment Department, Government of Assam and Mr. K R Patgiri, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 to 10 workmen.
2. By a notice published in the vernacular daily Amar Asom dated 23.11.2002 the respondents no. 3 to 10 workmen were dismissed from service as per the order of the Board of the petitioner Assam State Textile Corporation Limited, Noapara. Against such dismissal from service, the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Labour & Employment Department by the notification dated 03.09.2008 made a reference under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the Act of 1947) to the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Guwahati for an adjudication on the referred questions, which are extracted as below:
1. Whether the Management of the Assam State Textile Corpn.Ltd. was justified in dismissing the 8 (eight) workmen from their service ?
2. If not, whether they are entitled to re-instatement in the services with full back wages and other benefit?
3. If so, what relief is entitled to them?
4. Any other matter relating to the case.”
3. A reading of the first question of reference makes it discernable that the Labour Court
was required to decide whether the Management of the petitioner Assam State Textile
Corporation Limited was justified in dismissing the 8 (eight) numbers of workmen from their services and further reference was, if not, whether the workmen are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages and other benefits and also as to what reliefs they are entitled.
4. Accordingly, reference case no. 13/2008 was registered. The reference was answered by the learned Labour Court as per the award dated 25.11.2010.
5. In paragraph 16 of the award dated 25.11.2010, it had been held as extracted:
“16. It is both sides admitted fact that the concerned workmen were dismissed from service by the management w.e.f 23rd November-2002, and they were dismissed from service without complying with the provision of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, i.e. without giving one month notice showing the reasons of retrenchment or paying any amount to the concerned workmen in lieu of such notice, and even without paying retrenchment compensation. Thus, it is clear that the management of Assam State Textile Corporation Limited dismissed the concerned workmen from service w.e.f. 23.11.2002 without complying provision of Section 25-F of Industrial Dispute Act -1947, and hence, the dismissal order is palpably illegal and unlawful.”
6. A reading of the conclusion of the learned Labour Court in paragraph 16 makes it discernable that the Labour Court on one hand accepted that it is an admitted position of the parties that the workmen concerned were dismissed from their services by the Management with effect from 23.11.2002. But the further conclusion is that such dismissal from their services were made without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 i.e. without giving one month notice showing the reasons of retrenchment or paying any amount to the concerned workmen in lieu of such notice and even without paying any retrenchment compensation. Accordingly, the learned Labour Court arrived at its conclusion that the dismissal of the workmen concerned from their services with effect from 23.11.2002 were made without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 and therefore, the order/notice of dismissal was held to be illegal and unlawful.
7. Mr. A Jahid, learned counsel for the petitioner assails the aforesaid conclusion of the learned Labour Court on the ground that the requirement of Section 25-F of the Act of 1947 is in respect of a retrenchment but in the instant case, the workmen concerned were not retrenched but were dismissed from their services.
8. Mr. K R Patgiri, learn
