The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of complying with the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act in cases of retrenchment and the concept of continuity of service.

Heard Mr. J.S. Bisht, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. V.K. Kaparwan, Advocate for the respondents.

2. The petitioners are employees of Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation. They are aggrieved by order-dated 21.9.2010 and order dated 13.12.2010 passed by Regional Manager, Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation, by which it has been ordered that the petitioners shall be paid only such wages which were being given to them at the time of their retrenchment.

3. These employees of Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation have a chequered history, an apprisal of which only confirms the allegation in the petition that there has been a total apathy on the part of their Employer which is apparently a welfare State! These employees, who are at the lowest rung of their service have been involved in this protracted litigation where even after repeated orders passed by the High Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in their favour, no relief is in sight for them.

4. The facts of the case are that all the petitioners who were working in the Forest Department were retrenched by their employer. Consequently, all of them moved a reference before the Labour Court under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court in the said reference gave its finding against the workers (i.e. the present petitioners) and held that there was no anomaly in the retrenchment of the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by filing a writ petition which stood transferred after the reorganisation of the State in view of Section 35 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. A learned Single Judge of this High Court gave a decision in favour of the petitioners and held the retrenchment of the petitioners was bad while setting aside the order of the Labour Court. The operative portion of the order dated 21.8.2003 is as follows:-

“50. The validity, legality or illegality, of a retrenchment order referred for adjudication does not depend on the factor that under which provision the reference is made, i.e., either under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act or under Section 10 of the Central Act. The validity of the retrenchment is to be judged whether the retrenchment is in accordance with the provisions of either 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes act which is para materia with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act or is in accordance with Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act is attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. As it has been held in this judgment that in the facts and circumstances of the case, 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act was attracted, therefore, the validity of the retrenchment order is to be adjudged solely by determining the question as to whether the provisions of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with or not.

51. Thus, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is incorrect and is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside on this point also.

52. It is not disputed that the retrenchment was made without complying the provisions of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, which is directly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The effect of the aforesaid conclusion is that the retrenchment of such workmen without following the condition precedent to retrenchment as provided under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act are necessarily treated to be void and have no legal effect and the employer-employee relationship between the parties did not get snap (see Lal Mohammad v. Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd.)

53. The writ petitions are allowed. The findings of the Labour Court that Section 25N is not attracted but only 6N was attracted, is also set aside for the reasons recorded above and the orders of retrenchment of the petitioners being in violation of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, are also quashed. The