Point of Law: Retrenchment is defined in Section 2 (oo) of Act as termination by employer of service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action.

JUDGMENT :

Satyen Vaidya, J.

By way of instant petition, the petitioner has approached this Court for initiating proceedings, against respondents, under the Contempt of Courts Act with the allegation that they have willfully and deliberately disobeyed the judgment/order dated 26.02.2022 passed by this Court in LPA No. 258 of 2012, titled as State Bank of India and another vs. Puja.

2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the petition can be summed up as under :

(i) The petitioner worked as sweeper in New Shimla branch of State Bank of India (for short, ‘the bank’) from 6.9.2000 to 29.7.2005, on payment of Rs. 50 per day. She was not allowed by the bank to work with effect from 29.7.2005. Petitioner had raised an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the bank alleging inter-alia termination of her services to be in violation of Section 25-F of the Act with further prayer to reinstate her in service with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Appropriate authority on 22.01.2007 had referred the dispute raised by petitioner to Central Government–cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) under Section 10 of the Act in following terms:

“Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Shimla in terminating the services of Smt. Pooja, Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. 29.7.2005 is illegal and unjustified? If so, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?”

(iii) Learned Tribunal held the termination of petitioner to be bad in law on the grounds that no prior notice or one month’s pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was paid to her by the bank before terminating her services. It was also held that the petitioner had served for five years and the refusal on part of the Bank to abruptly bring to an end her services was violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of the Act. Learned Tribunal answered the reference in favour of petitioner and granted relief in following terms:

“Wherever, termination of any workman is declared illegal and void on account of being against the provisions of the I.D.Act, 1947, there are two options to remedied the violation of rights of workman. The first option is reinstatement of the workman on the same post from which she was terminated and another is reasonable compensation. It is settled principle of service jurisprudence that the order of reinstatement should not be casual but priority should be given for reinstatement of the workman. If the conduct of the management in this reference is to be seen, it is apparently clear that management refused to have any relation with the workman and to prove its wrong and illegal contention, the management has tried to take the benefits of the cheques which were given to the workman through a contractor. The workman has served for more than five years and I am of the view that reinstatement of the workman on the position she was working immediately prior to her termination is the only appropriate remedy.

Accordingly, the management is directed to reinstate the workman with all consequential benefits within one month from the date of publication of the workman. Central Government be approached for publication of the award, and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.”

(iv) The Bank assailed the award passed by learned Tribunal before this Court by way of CWP No. 663 of 2011, which came to be decided by learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 29.3.2012. Learned Single Judge upheld the award passed by learned Tribunal in the following terms:

“10. It is thus evident that the workman was working with the management. She was being paid Rs.50/- per day by the management from petty cash. Thus, it is established that there was master servant relationship between the workman and management. She was paid Rs.700/- separately by the contractor for operating generator. The management has not disputed before the learned trial Court that she ha