The court reaffirmed that failure to follow termination procedures under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act warrants compensation, but does not guarantee regularization of services.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Learned counsel for the parties are present.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: -

“for issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction from this Hon’ble High Court in the nature of certiorari for quashing the part of the award dated 17^th June, 2023, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Deoghar in I.D. Case No. 04 of 2018 whereby the learned labour court has held that the workmen are entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each for removing them without notice and following procedure u/s 25(F) of I.D. Act.”

Arguments of the Petitioners

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Water Resources Department is not an industry and therefore the learned labour court did not have the required jurisdiction to entertain the case filed by the concerned workmen directly before the learned labour court under Section 2(a)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

4. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2006 (1) JLJR 382 (State of Jharkhand through Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division vs. Jwala Raut) and also the judgment passed by this Court reported in 2014 SCC OnLine Jhar. 2907 (Pranaya Kumar Srivastava & Others vs. State of Jharkhand)

5. The learned counsel submits that the learned labour court erred in law entertaining the petition and therefore the impugned award has been passed by wrongful assumption of jurisdiction. He has further submitted that the condition precedent for filing an application under Section 2(A)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act has also not been followed, inasmuch as, the respondents never approached the conciliation officer. The learned counsel has also submitted that a finding has been recorded that the workmen were not continuing with their services under the petitioners since 01.04.2009 and they have received their remuneration till 31.03.2009. He has also submitted that the learned labour court has recorded that the claim was a stale claim as the dispute was raised after more than 9 years but still granted certain relief to the concerned workmen by directing payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- per head and also granting the relief of regularization.

6. The learned counsel submits that though before the learned labour court, the petitioners did not take the plea that the petitioners are not an industry within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, but the same being a point of law can be considered by this Court particularly in view of the aforesaid judgments.

Arguments of the Respondents

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer and has relied upon the provisions of Section 2(A)(ii) of the Industrial Disputes Act and submitted that the case was maintainable before the learned labour court. He has also submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned award calling for any interference. Only a small amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been directed to be paid as compensation on account of not following the required procedure under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.

8. Upon a query by this Court regarding the condition precedent for payment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the learned counsel submits that it was the specific case of the petitioners before the concerned court that the provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was duly followed. He has also submitted that the impugned award does not call for any interference.

Findings of this Court

9. The case arises out of an award passed in ID Case No. 4 of 2018 which was initiated on the basis of petition of three workmen under section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking a direction upon the petitioners for payment of their wages since 31.03.2009 and also seeking regularization of their services with all back wages. The case of the workmen was that they were da