Point of Law: provisions of Sections 25M, 25N and 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘I.D. Act’) was violated as well as the provisions of Sections 6N, 6P and 6Q and 6W of the Act. The workman, accordingly, prayed that he is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and with full back wages

JUDGMENT :

1. M/s. Jagran Prakashan Limited, Allahabad and their Establishment at Varanasi, dissatisfied with an award of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.P., Allahabad, dated 27.01.2012 (published on 11.04.2012), made in Adjudication Case no.1 of 2009, have instituted this Writ Petition, challenging the Award. The Award, last mentioned, has been rendered in an industrial dispute between M/s. Jagran Prakashan Limited and their workman, Ram Charitra Mishra. The Adjudication Case is a sequel to a reference made under Section 4-K of the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the State Act’) by the Labour Commissioner, U.P., Kanpur (an ex officio Secretary to the Government) in the following terms (rendered into English from Hindi vernacular):

“Whether the act of the Employers in terminating the services of their workman, Sri Ram Charitra Mishra son of Sri Satya Narain Mishra, ‘junior plate maker’, vide order dated 14.11.2006, with effect from 15.11.2006, is justified and/ or lawful? If not, to what benefit/ relief is the concerned workman entitled and in what terms?

2. The petitioners are admittedly a newspaper establishment, who employ working journalists, non-working journalists as well as other employees. According to the case of the second respondent, Ram Charitra Mishra, the workman, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘workman’, was initially enrolled as apprentice in petitioners’ establishment w.e.f. 17.07.1989. He trained as an apprentice in the trade of plate making and was employed as a semi-skilled workman in the petitioners’ establishment, on the basis of an oral engagement dated 01.11.1989. The petitioners shall hereinafter be referred to as the ‘employers’. The workman’s case is that ever since his appointment, he has been in harness of the employers, working regularly as a plate maker. He has done his duties honestly and with integrity. He was served with a letter dated 14.11.2006, suddenly terminating his services w.e.f. 15.11.2006. The reason assigned for dispensation of his services was the installation of a C.T.P. Machine, which the workman castigates as improper, wrong and a colourable exercise of powers.

3. It is the workman’s further case that in the publication of a newspaper, process is a necessary and intermediate stage. Without processing, there can be no publication of a newspaper. According to the workman, the process department has not been closed down due to installation of the C.T.P. Machine. The Sub-Editor, the clerk and the operator, besides other hands, have been retained in the department after requisite training. The installation of the machine has not led to deprivation of employment to those, who were in the process department. It is also claimed that prior to dispensation of the workman’s services, some new hands have been recruited, but his services have been dispensed with without bearing in mind his seniority. He was a permanent workman. He has never been served with a notice of closure. At the time when the workman’s services have been dispensed with, more than 100 workmen were in harness of the employers.

4. It is the workman’s case that according to Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short, ‘the Central Act’), it is necessary to secure permission for a valid closure from the Appropriate Government, which in this case, has not been obtained. It is also pleaded by the workman that the provisions of Section 25-N of the Central Act have been observed in breach. The order of termination of his services squarely falls in the category of retrenchment. It is pleaded that he has not been served with three months’ prior notice before retrenchment or paid notice pay in lieu thereof. It is also the workman’s case that no retrenchment compensation has been paid to him. It is specifically pleaded that whatever sum of money in connection with his unlawful retrenchment has been paid, he has received under protest and without prejudice. Along side, it is pleade