Non-compliance with mandatory Section 25-F(c) notice to appropriate Government renders retrenchment illegal, vitiating termination despite other conditions met.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

Reference under Section 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was answered against the petitioner by the learned Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the aforesaid award and hence, has preferred the instant writ petition.

2. Following reference was sent by the appropriate Government for adjudication to the learned Labour Court- cum-Industrial Tribunal:-

“Whether the termination of services of Shri Rajeev Gupta s/o Shri Kedar Nath Gupta, Data Entry Operator by the Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. w.e.f. after serving him 24 hours notice dated 20.04.2002 (copy enclosed) alongwith draft of Rs.2700/- in lieu of one month notice after paying him retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs.12,150/- is legal and justified? If not, to what back wages, service benefits and relief the above aggrieved workman is entitled to?”

Petitioner claimed before the learned Labour Court that his name was sponsored by the Employment Exchange, Dharamshala on 17.07.1992 for the post of Data Entry Computer Operator (Mark A). Petitioner qualified the written examination as also the interview. On the basis of result, his name was recommended and appointment was accordingly offered to him on 28.03.1993 (Mark B) as Data Entry Computer Operator by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala. The petitioner accepted the offer and joined as such on 03.04.1993 (Mark C). Petitioner contended that as Data Entry Operator, he served to the best of his ability and was never found lacking in any manner by his superiors. From April, 1993 to November, 1994, he was given the wages on piece rate basis as per terms and conditions of his appointment letter dated 28.03.1993. From December, 1994, he was paid on daily wage basis as per notification issued by the State Government from time to time. However, no separate appointment letter was issued reflecting petitioner’s service being on daily wage basis. Though petitioner continued to work for more than 240 days in each calendar year of his service yet his services were not regularized despite repeated requests. He was compelled to institute Original Application No. 3199/2001 before the erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal inter alia seeking regularization. The original application was disposed of as CWP(T) No.8138/2008 on 4.8.2009 reserving liberty to the petitioner to take up plea of regularization while assailing notice of termination of his service. This was ordered as the petitioner was shifted to the office of District Planning Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala in the year 1997 where he continued to serve till his service was retrenched by the respondent on 19.04.2002. It was urged for the petitioner that the respondents had changed his services conditions illegally by transferring him from the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kangra at Dharamshala to District Planning Office, Kangra. There was no question of petitioner having been appointed on contract basis w.e.f. September, 1997 in Planning Branch as he was serving on daily wage basis in the office of Deputy Commissioner, Kangra.

The petitioner also alleged violation of Section 25-F (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. Respondents contested the claim on several grounds. According to them, petitioner was not a workman. He was initially engaged as piece rated Data Entry Operator and w.e.f. September, 1997 his remuneration payment manner was changed to daily wages. Petitioner’s services were liable to be terminated with closure of the project. Since petitioner was not engaged against a regular cadre post, his services could not be regularized. Respondents denied