1994 Supreme(P&H) 988

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and N.K.Sodhi JJ.
Bhikku Ram Sh.Lalji
Versus
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Civil Writ Petition No. 11851 of 1994,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 28, 1994

The Court held that the termination of the petitioner's service was not covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court held that the Labour Court had erred in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The Court held that the Labour Court had not properly considered the evidence produced before it and had altogether ignored the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner about violation of Section 25g of the Act and also that the action of the employer was not bona fide. The Court also held that the Labour Court had completely ignored the oral evidence adduced by the two sides and had failed to record any finding on the question of bona fides of the action taken by the employer. The Court further held that the Labour Court's finding on the issue of applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act was perfunctory and cryptic.

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2(OO)(BB) - RETRENCHMENT - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - UNFAIR LABOUR PRACTICE - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - SCOPE - EXCEPTION - BURDEN OF PROOF - BONA FIDE EXERCISE OF RIGHT - COURT'S JURISDICTION - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS - LABOUR LEGISLATION - SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATION - EQUALITY CLAUSE - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 16 - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - INDUSTRIAL ADJUDICATION - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a workman, challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, holding that his case was covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) and he was not entitled to any relief. The petitioner had been appointed in the service of the Haryana Handloom Weavers Apex Co-op. Society Limited for a period of 89 days in the first instance and his service was terminated but he was re-employed on similar terms and conditions. The process of re-employment and termination of service continued till June 24, 1987 when his service was finally discontinued. The petitioner raised a dispute against the termination of his service alleging that his service was retrenched without compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 25f of the Act. He also pleaded violation of Section 25g of the Act as well as the principles of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the award passed by the Labour Court was perverse and suffered from an error of law apparent on the face of it. The Labour Court had not looked into the evidence produced before it and had altogether ignored the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner about violation of Section 25g of the Act and also that the action of the employer was not bona fide. The Court further held that the Labour Court had completely ignored the oral evidence adduced by the two sides and had failed to record any finding on the question of bona fides of the action taken by the employer. The Court also held that the Labour Court's finding on the issue of applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act was perfunctory and cryptic. The Court observed that the entire approach of the Labour Court depicted a casual approach adopted by the said Court while deciding the dispute.

Issues: 1. Whether the termination of the petitioner's service was covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 2. Whether the Labour Court erred in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief? 3. Whether the Labour Court had properly considered the evidence produced before it? 4. Whether the Labour Court had properly considered the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner about violation of Section 25g of the Act and the principles of natural justice? 5. Whether the Labour Court had properly considered the question of bona fides of the action taken by the employer?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the termination of the petitioner's service was not covered by Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court held that the Labour Court had erred in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The Court held that the Labour Court had not properly considered the evidence produced before it and had altogether ignored the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner about violation of Section 25g of the Act and also that the action of the employer was not bona fide. The Court also held that the Labour Court had completely ignored the oral evidence adduced by the two sides and had failed to record any finding on the question of bona fides of the action taken by the employer. The Court further held that the Labour Court's finding on the issue of applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act was perfunctory and cryptic. 2. The Court held that the Labour Court had erred in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The Court held that the Labour Court had not properly considered the evidence produced before it and had altogether ignored the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner about violation of Section 25g of the Act and also that the action of the employer was not bona fide. The Court also held that the Labour Court had completely ignored the oral evidence adduced by the two sides and had failed to record any finding on the question of bona fides of the action taken by the employer. The Court further held that the Labour Court's finding on the issue of applicability of Section 2(oo)(bb) of the Act was perfunctory and cryptic.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the award passed by the Labour Court, and remanded the case back to the Labour Court for passing a fresh award in the light of the observations made in the judgment.