Temporary workmen are considered workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and are entitled to retrenchment compensation under S. 25F, regardless of the temporary nature of their employment.

Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act - Temporary Workman - Interpretation of S.2(s)
Fact of the Case:

The respondent, a temporary workman, sought retrenchment compensation after serving for more than ten years.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that a temporary workman is considered a workman under S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and is entitled to retrenchment compensation under S. 25F, regardless of the temporary nature of the employment.
Issues: Interpretation of S.2(s) and S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act in relation to temporary workman's entitlement to retrenchment compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there is no distinction between permanent and temporary workmen for the purpose of retrenchment compensation under S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was entitled to retrenchment compensation despite being a temporary workman. No costs were awarded.

Judgment :-

K. Veeraswami, C.J.

That even a temporary workman is a workman within the meaning of S.2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act is now well-established. It is unnecessary to refer to any authority on the matter.

2. The only other question is whether the respondent, having been a temporary workman, would, in addition to a month's notice or one month's wages in lieu of the notice, be entitled to retrenchment compensation. The respondent was appointed temporarily on July 10, 1956, and seem to have continued to be temporary till August 10, 1967. That was only in form for he had been in service for more than ten years.Apart from that, the Act does not appear to make distinction, especially S. 25F, between a permanent workman and a temporary workman for purposes of retrenchment compensation. That being the case, the order of the learned Judge is correct. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1973 Supreme(Mad) 529

High Court of Judicature at MadrasTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VEERASWAMIN. Natesan - AppellantVersusChief Engineer (Irrigation), Chepauk, Madras - RespondentCase No : W.A. No. 654 of 1969Decided On : 06 November 1973

Temporary workmen are considered workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act and are entitled to retrenchment compensation under S. 25F, regardless of the temporary nature of their employment.

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VEERASWAMI
N. Natesan - Appellant
Versus
Chief Engineer (Irrigation), Chepauk, Madras - Respondent
Case No : W.A. No. 654 of 1969
Decided On : 06 November 1973