1980 (4) TMI 305 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the termination of the appellant's services constituted 'retrenchment' u/s 2(OO) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Whether the requirements of s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with in the termination of the appellant's services.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the termination of the appellant's services constituted 'retrenchment' u/s 2(OO) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The appellant, Santosh Gupta, was employed by the State Bank of Patiala and her services were terminated on August 21, 1974. The appellant contended that her termination was 'retrenchment' within the meaning of s. 2(OO) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it did not fall within any of the exceptions mentioned in s. 2(OO). The management argued that the termination was due to the appellant's failure to pass a test required for confirmation in service and not due to discharge of surplus labor, thus not constituting 'retrenchment'. The Court emphasized the broad interpretation of 'retrenchment' as "termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever" and concluded that the appellant's termination fell within this definition.

Issue 2: Whether the requirements of s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act were complied with in the termination of the appellant's services.

Section 25F prescribes conditions for retrenchment, including one month's notice, payment of compensation, and notice to the appropriate government. The Court noted that the object of these provisions is to compensate the workman for loss of employment and provide subsistence until new employment is found. The Court held that the termination of the appellant's service, even though due to failure to pass a test, constituted 'retrenchment' and thus required compliance with s. 25F. The Court found that the requirements of s. 25F were not met in this case.

Conclusion:

The Court set aside the order of the Presiding Officer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi, and directed the reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was entitled to costs.