Failure to comply with mandatory provisions under S.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act renders retrenchment invalid.

1Petitioner challenges Ext. P-3 Award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam (first respondent) ordering reinstatement of the second respondent. In the claim statement filed by the second respondent he contended that his service was terminated by the petitioner management with effect from 10th June 1985 illegally. He claims to have been in service from 22nd December 1975. First respondent held that the petitioner has not complied with S.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act when it retrenched the second respondent and so it is not valid. He is directed to be reinstated.

2 Petitioner's case is that it had engaged a counsel to represent its case before the first respondent, that due to oversight there was omission to note the posting date and so Ext. P-3 award was passed ex parte. Petitioner filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decision with delay condonation petition. First respondent held that sufficient grounds have not been made out to condone the delay and hence dismissed that petition.

3 First respondent as per Ext. P-3 Award held that the retrenchment of the second respondent cannot be sustained in view of non compliance of Clauses (a) to (c) of S.25F of the Act. The notice issued by the Secretary of the Petitioner Society dated 6th June 1985 discloses that the governing body of the Society decided to abolish the post of Store-keeper cum Clerk cum Supervisor with effect from 10th June 1985 and called upon the second respondent to get himself relieved from the service on receipt of the amounts due to him as per law. Learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that the said notice does not satisfy the mandatary requirements of S.25F of the Act and so it cannot have any legal validity. Petitioner's contention is that notice is in substantial compliance of S.25F and at any rate hyper technical approach cannot be adopted by the Court.

4 S.25F stipulates conditions for retrenching a workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year. First condition is that the workman should be given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment. In lieu of such notice he has to be paid wages for the period of notice. Second condition is that at the time of retrenchment compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen day's average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months should be paid to him. The third condition is that notice in the prescribed manner should be served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the official Gazette.

5 The Industrial Disputes Rules has prescribed the notice as in Form P. As per Form P the management has to explain the reasons for the retrenchment. It must also indicate that the workman concerned has been paid compensation under S.25F of the Act on such and such date. A copy of the notice in writing contemplated under S.25F(a) of the Act should also be enclosed as per Form P.

6 S.25F is a mandatory rule. The three conditions mentioned thereunder are cumulative. Admittedly notice in the prescribed form (Form P) was not issued to the Government. Contention of the petitioner that issuance of such notice to the appropriate Government is only for statistical purpose and the failure to comply with it will not vitiate the action taken by the petitioner in retrenching the workman cannot be accepted as there is nothing in the Section to hold that issuance of such notice is provided under S.25F(G) is only an empty formality. On a reading of S.25F it is not possible to hold that any departure from its mandatory requirements is only of little consequence. Reading of S.25F makes it beyond any controversy that a workman employed in an industrial undertaking cannot be retrenched by the employer unless the conditions precedent to it are complied with.

7 The Labour Court held that there is no evidence to prove that valid tender or off