9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the retrenchment of Shri Venkatesan, Ex-Overseer, Housing Colony Construction Scheme of Hindustan Steel Ltd., Ranchi is proper and justified? 2. Whether the retrenchment notice complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 3. Applicability of Section 25F(b) or Section 25FFF(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the retrenchment of Shri Venkatesan, Ex-Overseer, Housing Colony Construction Scheme of Hindustan Steel Ltd., Ranchi is proper and justified? The Management of Hindustan Steel Ltd. argued that Shri Venkatesan Naidu (Shri Naidu) was recruited on a temporary basis for the Ranchi Housing Project, which was wound up by the end of 1966. Despite efforts to secure alternative employment for Shri Naidu, his services were ultimately retrenched on June 22, 1968, due to the completion of the project and lack of necessary qualifications for other positions. The Tribunal found that the management had made genuine and bona fide efforts to absorb Shri Naidu in other units but failed. The retrenchment was deemed proper, justified, and legal, with no evidence of unfair labor practices or victimization. 2. Whether the retrenchment notice complied with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? The Tribunal held that the retrenchment notice was defective as it did not comply with Clause (b) of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The notice informed Shri Naidu that he could receive retrenchment compensation from the cashier within two days from the date of termination, subject to the production of no-demand certificates. The Tribunal observed that this condition indicated the management's intention not to pay compensation at the time of retrenchment, thus violating Section 25F(b). Despite the management's objection that this defect was not specifically pleaded in the written statement, the Tribunal found the notice's infirmity apparent on its face and ruled in favor of reinstating Shri Naidu with wages and other dues. 3. Applicability of Section 25F(b) or Section 25FFF(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 The Supreme Court focused on whether Section 25F(b) or Section 25FFF(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act was applicable. Section 25FFF(2) states that in cases where an undertaking set up for construction work is closed down due to the completion of work within two years, no compensation under Clause (b) of Section 25F is required. The Court found that the Ranchi Housing Project was a distinct venture with a clear beginning and end, and its closure constituted an "undertaking" under Section 25FFF(2). Consequently, Clause (b) of Section 25F was not applicable, and the retrenchment notice complied with Section 25FFF(1), which only required notice and compensation as if the workman had been retrenched. The Supreme Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in holding the general ground in the written statement to cover the specific plea of infirmity of the notice. The plea of statutory defect in the notice should have been specific and precise. Excluding Clause (b) of Section 25F and ruling out the plea of notice infirmity, the Court found the retrenchment of Shri Naidu proper and justified. The appeal was allowed, the impugned award set aside, and no order as to costs was made.
|
