Termination of services of a workman without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 25F - RETRENCHMENT - WORKMAN EMPLOYED FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR - TERMINATION OF SERVICES WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH SECTION 25F - ILLEGAL - REINSTATEMENT WITH BACKWAGES.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a clerk in the bank, was appointed on a daily wage basis and paid a monthly salary of Rs. 336/-. He continued in that position till April 27, 1982, when he was removed from service by the office communication dated April 27, 1982. The petitioner raised a dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, which by award dated February 26, 1985 found that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies alone was competent to make appointment and the bank in defiance of the rules and regulations, appointed the petitioner as temporary clerk. Hence, the Petitioner's contention that the bank had adopted unfair labour practice was rejected by the Labour Court as fallacious. Accordingly, the Labour Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 7321 of 1985, challenging the award and further sought for a direction to reinstate him as clerk with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits with costs.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the termination of the petitioner's services was illegal as it was done without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court further held that the petitioner was entitled to reinstatement with backwages.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are attracted to the case having regard to the contention that the termination was due to the fact that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies had not approved the appointment as the Petitioner was not qualified. 2. Whether there was no termination of the services of the petitioner in the eye of law as the very appointment itself was void. 3. That the question of termination of services of the petitioner did not arise as the services of the petitioner was not capable of continuation having regard to the fact that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for appointment as clerk.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The expression 'retrenchment' as per Sec. 2(oo) of the I.D. Act means the termination by the employer of service of a workman for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action as long as such termination does not fall within the category of the voluntary retirement of a workmen or retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf. * Section 25F of the Act specifically provides that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice (b) the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continuous Service or any part thereof in excess of six months. * The factum of employment is relevant and not the legality or otherwise of it.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the award of the Labour Court. The court further directed the bank to reinstate the petitioner as a daily wage worker at the rate of Rs. 13/- per day and to pay him arrears of wages from the date of termination till March 31, 1996 amounting to Rs. 54, 275/-.

Judgment :-

K. A. SWAMI, C.J.

This appeal is preferred by the Srirangam, Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Srirangam, Tiruchy (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') against the order dated October 28, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 7321 of 1995. In the writ Petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the award dated February 26, 1985 passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 248 of 1993. That award came to be passed in the dispute raised on the following points :

(1) Whether the non employment of Thiru K. Nagarajan is justified, if not to what relief he is entitled ?

(2) To compute the relief, if any awarded in terms of money if it can be so computed.

The facts which lead to the above said dispute are as follows : The petitioner, Thiru K. Nagarajan was appointed in the bank as Clerk, from April 1, 1974 and he was paid a total salary of Rs. 261/- per month. He continued as such till May 31, 1975 when his services were terminated. He did not take any action with regard to his termination of services. However, he was re-employed on daily wages basis at the rate of Rs. 13/- per day and paid monthly salary of Rs. 336/- with effect from August 1, 1980. He continued in that position till April 27, 1982 on which date, he was removed from the services by the office communication dated April 27, 1982 which reads as follows :

"Proceedings of the President, Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank Limited, Srirangam,

Present : Thiru K. Padmanaban

Sub : Urban Bank for the Srirangam Co-operative Urban Bank-Removal of Thiru K. Nagarajan and C. Mani from their services - Orders issued -

Ref : Review of the Joint Registrar of Co-op. Societies, Tiruchy RC. 14755/81-B5(i) dated April 9, 1982.As per Joint Registrar's review in the ref. cited, the following two employees who are working as daily wages in Srirangam Co-op. Urban Bank are hereby removed from their services of the Bank.

1. Thiru K. Nagarajan

2. Thiru C. Mani

It is also hereby noted that Thiru K. Nagarajan and Thiru C. Mani are not to be allowed to report to the bank for any duty.

Sd/-

President

Therefore, the writ petitioner raised the dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, which by award dated February 26, 1985 found that Registrar of Co-operative Societies alone was competent to make appointment and the bank in defiance of the rules and regulations, appointed the petitioner as temporary clerk as the Board of Directors of the Bank was very much interested in the petitioner and initiative was taken by the Board to get the appointment ratified. Hence, the Petitioner's contention that the bank had adopted unfair labour practice was rejected by the Labour Court as fallacious. Accordingly, the Labour Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the petitioner preferred W.P. No. 7321 of 1985, challenging the award and further sought for a direction to reinstate him as clerk with continuity of service, backwages and all other attendant benefits with costs. Learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition as prayed for on the ground that Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was attracted to the case and as the condition precedent to retrenchment of a workman was not complied with removal of the petitioner from the services was bad in law. The relevant portion of the order of the learned single Judge is as follows :" *

It is admitted fact by both sides that the writ petitioner was initially appointed by the 2nd respondent management and subsequently for want of vacancy his services were terminated. It is evident that as and when the retrenchment is going to be effected under the Industrial Law, the last entrant has to go. Applying the above said principle, the 2nd respondent rightly terminated the services of the writ petitioner for want of vacancy. Thereafter, when once another vacancy arose, the Management took a right decision in reappointing the writ petitioner and he was allowed t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document