The mandatory nature of Section 25-F and Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, emphasizing the requirement for one month's notice and adequate compensation for retrenched employees.

G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

C.M. No. 1709 of 2014

1. The present application has been filed to recall the order whereby, the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.01.2014. Notice of the application.

2. Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Advocate, counsel for respondent No. 2, who is present in Court accepts notice and states that he has no objection if the application is allowed.

3. Accordingly, the application is allowed. Order dated 16.01.2014 is recalled and the main writ petition is restored to its original number.

C.W.P. No. 6532 of 1993

4. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the main case is taken up on Board and is taken up for hearing today itself.

5. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the award dated 30.12.1992 (Annexure P-3) vide which, the respondent No. 2-workman was reinstated with all consequential benefits and continuity of service with full back wages w.e.f. 01.04.1987 i.e. date of demand notice.

6. The perusal of the paper book would go on to show that vide the demand notice dated 01.04.1987 (Annexure P-1), respondent No. 2-workman raised his claim that he had joined services in July, 1980 and his services were terminated on 25.05.1984. The mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') were not complied with and no notice was given and no retrenchment compensation was paid. The principle of "last come first go" was not observed and accordingly sought reinstatement.

7. The defences taken by the petitioner-Board before the Labour Court was that the retrenchment had been made after following the mandatory provisions and one month's notice was served upon the workman vide Office Memo No. 5274 dated 23.04.1984 and retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 345/- was offered. The workman had refused to accept the money order and the same had been received back. It was pleaded that it was contract on daily wage basis and it was over in the evening on the same day and therefore, the reference was not maintainable. It was pleaded that the principle of "last come first go" was duly complied with when the workman was retrenched and no junior persons were retained.

8. The Labour Court, after taking into account the statement of the worker and the management witness Sh. Yash Kumar UDC and Brij Bhushan UDC, came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 25-F(a) had not been complied with. There was no evidence on record to show that the retrenchment notice dated 23.04.1984 was served upon the workman and the workman had denied having received the notice. The management witness Sh. Brij Bhushan, in his cross examination, had admitted that there was no evidence that the retrenchment notice Ex. M-2 was actually served upon the workman. The contents of the said notice were also examined and it was further held that there was no mention of any specific amount, which was to be paid to him as retrenchment compensation. The management witness MW-1 Yash Kumar had deposed that compensation amount of Rs. 450/- was sent to the petitioner by money order in July, 1984 whereas Brij Bhushan stated that an amount of Rs. 795/- was sent by money order on 23.05.1984. It was further noticed that the workman had worked from July, 1980 to 24.05.1984 and in view of the provisions of Section 25-F(b) of the Act, the petitioner-Board was to pay 60 days' pay since he had worked from July 1980 to 24.05.1984. The workman was drawing Rs. 25/- as wages and the retrenchment compensation thus came to Rs. 1,500/- whereas, according to the management version, it was Rs. 345/-. Even as per the version of the two management witnesses, compensation was amount was Rs. 450/- and total amount of Rs. 795/- was sent as compensation which was not adequate and not in conformity with Section 25-F(b) of the Act. Accordingly, it was held that the termination of the services were not made in accordance with law.

9. Further on the question of juniors being retained, it was noticed that some workmen had joined aft