9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the impugned termination order of the respondent-workman dated 29.4.1966 was violative of Rule 5 of the Rules or for that matter Rule 5 of the latter Rules. 2. If the decision on the first point is in negative and in favor of the appellant-Corporation, whether the impugned order of termination can be said to have violated Section 25-F of the I.D. Act and consequently the final decision rendered by the Division Bench can be sustained on that ground. 3. What appropriate final order should be passed. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: Point No. 1: The appellant-Corporation argued that the Division Bench erroneously relied on the judgment in Senior Superintendent, R.M.S., Cochin & Anr. v. K.V. Gopinath, Sorter, which was overruled by Union of India and Ors. v. Arun Kumar Roy. The termination on 29.4.1966 was governed by Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, not the 1949 Rules. The 1965 Rules, amended effective 1.5.1965, did not require simultaneous payment of compensation for termination, unlike the 1949 Rules. Therefore, the Division Bench's reliance on the 1949 Rules was misplaced. The Court concluded that the termination was not violative of the amended Rule 5 of the 1965 Rules, and the first point was held in favor of the appellant-Corporation. Point No. 2: Despite the first point being resolved in favor of the appellant-Corporation, the Court considered whether the termination violated Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (I.D. Act). The respondent-workman had completed more than 240 days of continuous service, making Section 25-F applicable. The termination without compliance with Section 25-F was null and void. The Labour Court's finding that Section 25-F did not apply because the termination was not due to excess staff was incorrect, given the later decisions of the Supreme Court. The Court held that the termination was indeed violative of Section 25-F, and the second point was decided in favor of the respondent-workman. Appropriate Final Order: Given the violation of Section 25-F, the respondent-workman was entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. However, due to the prolonged litigation of over 33 years, the Court found it inappropriate to grant full back-wages. The Court ordered: 1. The impugned order of the Division Bench, insofar as it held the termination violative of Rule 5, was set aside. 2. The final order of reinstatement with continuity of service was upheld, based on the violation of Section 25-F. 3. The respondent-workman was entitled to 50% back-wages from the date of termination until reinstatement, along with all other consequential benefits. The appellant-Corporation was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman within eight weeks and pay the 50% back-wages within that period. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
|
