Back
1997 Supreme(All) 453
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.Katju
MAHESH RAM
Versus
PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT GORAKHPUR
Decided On : 23 April 1997
C. M. W. P No. 3562 of 1995
Rahul Sripathi,
When a project comes to an end, it is a case of closure and not retrenchment, entitling the affected employee to closure compensation under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Headnote:
Labour Dispute - Closure of Project - The court found that the petitioner's service automatically came to an end with the closure of the project, and it was not a case of retrenchment. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to closure compensation under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a daily wage employee and later promoted, but his service came to an end with the closure of the project. The Labour Court found that it was not a case of retrenchment and ordered closure compensation to be paid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's service came to an end with the closure of the project, and it was not a case of retrenchment. The petitioner was entitled to closure compensation under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's termination was a case of retrenchment or closure due to the end of the project.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a project comes to an end, it is a case of closure and not retrenchment, and therefore, Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not have to be complied with. The petitioner was entitled to closure compensation under Section 25-FFF of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, but the court ordered the respondent to pay closure compensation to the petitioner within three months of the order.
This writ petition has been filed against the impugned award of the Labour Court, Gorakhpur, dated 1-6- 1993 Annexure 11 to the writ petition.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed in the establishment of the respondent as daily wage employee on Rs. 8/- per day in October, 1981 and he was promoted in June 1983 to the post of Roop-wani Prahari on the consolidated pay of Rs. 240/- per month. He alleged that he has worked continuously from October, 1981 and was paid salary till February but he was not paid there after although he worked up to July, 1987. He was not allowed to work there after. Hence he raised an industrial dispute which has been decided against the petitioner. Hence this petition.
4. Before the Labour Court the parties filed written statement and rejoinder state ments true copies of which are Annexures 1 to 4 to the writ petition. Copy of the petitioners statement before the Labour Court is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. True copy of the evidence of the employer is Annexure 8 to the writ petition.
5. The Labour Court has recorded its finding that the petitioner was appointed against a Project and since that Project had come to an end, his service automatically came to an end. Hence, it was not a
case of retrenchment. Evidently the petitioner was doing the work of planting during the Project and since that Project had come to an end, he cannot be retained in service as it was not a permanent job. These are finding of fact and I cannot interfere with the same in writ jurisdiction. When a Project came to an end, it is obviously a case of closure and not of retrenchmentand hence Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act does not have to be complied with. However, the petitioner shall be paid closure compensa tion under Section 25- FFFof the Industrial Dispute Act by the respondent No. 3 with in three months of production of a certified copy of this order.
6. The petition is dismissed subject to above observation. Petition dismissed.
.
