Termination without compliance with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is void ab initio, and compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Maria Clete, J.

Heard.

2. The writ petitioner, an educational agency managing multiple educational institutions and registered as a society under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, with its headquarters in Chennai, has filed the present writ petition challenging the Award passed by the II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, in I.D. No. 101/2011 dated 06.11.2019. By the said Award, the Labour Court held that the non-employment of the Respondent was not valid. However, instead of ordering reinstatement, it directed the payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement, quantified at Rs. 5 lakhs, to be paid within three months.

3. The writ petition was admitted on 06.01.2021, and an interim stay on the operation of the Award was granted. Upon notice, the Respondent entered an appearance through their counsel.

4. It is seen from the records that the Respondent workman was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on probation with effect from 31.01.2005. Upon successfully completing his probation, he was designated as a Junior Assistant with a salary of Rs. 4,500 per month. However, by an order dated 16.04.2009, after completing four years of service, he was relieved from his position. It is further noted that another individual, reportedly a close relative of the Administrative Manager of the Petitioner Society, was appointed in his place.

5. The workman issued a legal notice on 22.01.2010, requesting that his termination order be set aside and that he be reinstated in service. As no response was received, he raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer-III under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act through his letter dated 09.04.2010. It was contended on his behalf that the termination was invalid, as it violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, given that he was neither provided with prior notice nor compensated for the services rendered.

6. The management appeared before the Conciliation Officer and filed an objection statement dated 16.08.2010. As this represents the petitioner management's initial stance on the matter, it is necessary to extract the relevant portion from their objection statement detailing the reasons for the workman’s termination:

“TNPPCA-HS is functioning for the admission purpose of the management seats in Self-Financing colleges. Our work nature includes time bound duties. Mr.Ganesh who was working as Data Entry Operator from 31.01.2005 till 15.04.2009. He was warned earlier on many occasions with many allegations as such 1. Dereliction in duty 2. Showing Disrespect to superiors 3. Talking obscene to fellow staffs 4. Frequently attends office late. On 16.04.2009, when the same allegations were reported to our Administrative Officer and when he was questioned, he threw the office key on the Administrative Officer’s table and left the office abusing in filthy language. He didn’t turn up to office for 2 days without any sanctioned leave or prior permission, after that we intimated him through our staffs to come to office to meet the Secretary. But he had neither met him nor sent any apology letter to our office. Hence, we had issued Charge memo to him on 20.04.2009 from our office, and a reminder were also sent on 27.04.2009. But no reply has been received from him.

Our season work has started and his unauthorized absence made us to relieve him from his duties on 16.04.2009 ie. from the date he left the office illegally by an order dated 05.05.2009. His duty salary has also been paid without any pending.

Our’s is a time bound work and after one month we have selected a candidate for his place with proper recruiting procedure.”

7. As the Conciliation Officer was unable to mediate a settlement, he recorded the failure o