1982 (2) TMI 302 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the appellant who was recruited as casual labour continued to be the same or he had acquired the status of temporary railway servant at the time of termination of his service? Held that - There is no dispute that the appellant would be a workman within the meaning of the expression in s. 2(s) of the Act. Further, it is incontrovertible that he has rendered continuous service for a period over twenty years. Therefore, the first condition of s. 25F that appellant is a workman who has rendered service for not less than one year under the Railway administration, an employer carrying on an industry, and that his service is terminated which for the reason hereinbefore given would constitute retrenchment. It is immaterial that he is a daily rated worker. He is either doing manual or technical work and his salary was less than ₹ 500/- and the termination of his service does not fall in any of the excepted categories. Therefore, assuming that he was a daily rated worker, once he has rendered continuous uninterrupted service for a period of one year or more within the meaning of s. 25F of the Act and his service is terminated for any reason whatsoever and the case does not fall in any of the excepted categories notwithstanding the fact that Rule 2505 would be attracted, it would have to be read subject to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly the termination of service in this case would constitute retrenchment and for not complying with pre-conditions to valid retrenchment, the order of termination would be illegal and invalid. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and declare that the termination of service of the appellant was illegal and invalid and the appellant continues to be in service and he would be entitled to full back wages and costs quantified at ₹ 2,000.

Issues Involved:

1. Termination of service and its classification as retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2. Status of the appellant as a temporary railway servant or casual labour.
3. Compliance with procedural requirements for valid termination.
4. Impact of trade union activities on the appellant's termination.
5. Application of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and its proviso.
6. Entitlement to benefits and back wages.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Termination of Service and Retrenchment:

The appellant's termination was deemed to be retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Supreme Court held that the expression "termination of service for any reason whatsoever" in the definition of 'retrenchment' covers every kind of termination except those expressly excluded by the Act. The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court's interpretation that retrenchment means only the discharge of surplus labour was overruled by the Supreme Court. The Court referenced multiple precedents, including Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Shambhu Nath Mukherji, to affirm that the appellant's termination constituted retrenchment and was invalid due to non-compliance with Section 25F conditions.

2. Status as Temporary Railway Servant or Casual Labour:

The appellant argued that he should be considered a temporary railway servant due to his long and continuous service. The Court examined Rule 2501 of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, which states that casual labour becomes temporary after six months of continuous service. The appellant had rendered continuous service from November 15, 1954, to October 8, 1974, totaling 20 years. The Court found that the appellant had acquired the status of a temporary railway servant long before his termination, making the termination under Rule 2505 invalid.

3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements:

The Court emphasized that the termination of a temporary railway servant must comply with Rule 2302, which prescribes the procedure for termination, including notice and inquiry. The appellant's termination was based on alleged unauthorized absence, a misconduct requiring procedural compliance. The Court found that the termination was void and invalid due to the lack of notice, inquiry, and compliance with the principles of natural justice.

4. Impact of Trade Union Activities:

The appellant's active involvement in trade union activities and his role as General Secretary of the Southern Railway Construction Workers Union were highlighted. The Court noted that the appellant's termination appeared to be a result of victimization for his trade union activities, which constituted unfair labor practice and mala fide action by the Railway administration.

5. Application of Section 9A and its Proviso:

The respondent argued that the notice required under Section 25F was dispensed with by the proviso (b) of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Court rejected this argument, stating that Section 9A deals with changes in conditions of service and not with termination. Retrenchment does not constitute a change in conditions of service under the Fourth Schedule, making Section 9A inapplicable. The Court clarified that the notice required for retrenchment under Section 25F could not be dispensed with by Section 9A.

6. Entitlement to Benefits and Back Wages:

The Court concluded that the appellant, having acquired the status of a temporary railway servant, was entitled to the benefits accorded to such employees. The termination was declared illegal and invalid, and the appellant was entitled to full back wages and costs. The Court also criticized the Railway administration's practice of treating long-serving employees as casual labor and urged for reforms to align with socio-economic justice principles.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Kerala High Court's decision, and declared the appellant's termination illegal and invalid. The appellant was ordered to be reinstated with full back wages and costs quantified at Rs. 2,000. The judgment emphasized the need for fair treatment of long-serving employees and compliance with procedural requirements for termination.

← Previous Next →