Termination due to discontinuation of a scheme amounts to retrenchment requiring compliance with statutory provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.A.Abdul Hakhim, J.

1. Since common questions arise in these Writ Petitions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of by a common judgment.

2. W.P.(C) Nos.32084/2006 & 33809/2006 arise from the Award of the Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam, dated 31.08.2006 in I.D. No.24/2006. W.P.(C) No.32084/2006 is filed by the Management and W.P.(C) No.33809/2006 is filed by the Workman in the said I.D. W.P.(C) No.13062/2007 arises from the Award of the Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam, dated 07.12.2006 in I.D. No.42/2006. W.P.(C) No.13062/2007 is filed by the Management in the said I.D. The Workmen, C. Rajendran in I.D. No.24/2006 and A.K. Pankajakshan in I.D. No.42/2006 had been working as deposit collectors of the Management Bank at its Thrippunithura and Kodungallur branches, respectively.

3. In I.D. No.24/2006, the reference made by the Central Government under Section 10 (1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘ID Act’), for adjudication is whether non- renewal of contract amounts to denial of employment; whether the service of the Workman was terminated by the Management, and if terminated, whether the termination is legal or not, and if not, what are the reliefs the Workman is entitled to. In I.D. No.42/2006, the reference for adjudication is whether the action of the Management in terminating the services of the Workman, Deposit Collector, is legal and justifiable, and if not, what reliefs the Workman is entitled to.

4. In both the Industrial Disputes, the Industrial Tribunal found that the termination of the services of the Workmen is not legal. In I.D. No.24/2006, it is ordered that the Workman is entitled to the benefits under Section 25-F of the ID Act. In I.D. No.42/2006, it is ordered that the Workman is entitled to be reinstated with back wages on the basis of the average remuneration paid by way of commission in the year preceding his termination; that he is entitled to continuity of service and other benefits, if any, and that he is entitled to cost.

5. The Management filed the Writ Petition challenging the Awards passed by the Industrial Tribunal and to dismiss the claims of the Workmen. The Workman in I.D. No.24/2006 filed the Writ Petition challenging the Award to the extent to which it refused to order reinstatement of the Workman with back wages.

6. Parties are referred to in accordance with their status before the Industrial Tribunal for convenience.

7. I heard the learned Counsel for the Management in these Writ Petitions, Adv. Sri. Jai Mohan, the learned Counsel for the Workman in I.D. No.24/2006, Smt. Devika Mohan and the learned Counsel for the Workman in I.D. No.42/2006, Sri. Thomas P. Kuruvila.

8. The learned Counsel for the Management contended that even though Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is not applicable to the Industrial Disputes, it is well settled that the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court should not entertain stale claims. The Workmen were engaged by the Management only till the year 1994. The Industrial Dispute was raised only in the year 2002 and 2003 after a lapse of nearly 8 years. The Workmen did not offer any sufficient explanation for the delay in raising the Industrial Dispute. The long delay in raising the Industrial Dispute by itself caused prejudice to the Management. There was no employer-employee relationship between the Management and the Workmen. They were engaged as Deposit Collectors with remuneration as commission on the deposits for a particular Deposit Scheme by the name of Bala Kshema Deposit (BKD). They were known as Bala Kshema Deposit Agents. The relationship between the Management an