9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 305X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 3 excepted cases mentioned in s. 2(OO). Since there was 'retrenchment', it was bad for non-compliance with the provisions of s. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand the contention of the management was that the termination of services was not due to discharge of surplus labour. It was due to the failure of the workman to pass the test which would have enabled her to be confirmed in the service. Therefore, it was not retrenchment within the meaning of s. 2(OO) of the Industrial Disputes Act. S. 25-F prescribes that no workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year shall be retrenched by the employer until-(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice; (b) the workman has been paid at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in a excess of six months; and(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice of a workman. Yet, the Legislature took special care to mention that they were not included within the meaning of termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever:. This, in our opinion, emphasizes the broad interpretation to be given to the expression 'retrenchment'. In our view if due weight is given to the words the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever and if the words 'for any reason whatsoever' are understood to mean what they plainly say, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the expression 'retrenchment' must include every termination of the service of a workman by an act of the employer. The underlying assumption, of course, is that the undertaking is running as an undertaking and the employer continues as an employer but. where either on account of transfer of the undertaking or on account of the closure of the undertaking the basic assumption disappears, there can be no question of 'retrenchment' within the meaning of the definition contained in, S. 2(OO). This came to be realised as a result of the decision of this Court in Hariprasad Shivshanker S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and expectations. The object of retrenchment compensation is to give partial protection to the retrenched employee and his family to enable them to tide over the hard period of unemployment . Once the object of 25F, 25FF and 25FFF is understood and the true nature of the compensation which those provisions provide is realised, it is difficult to make any distinction between termination of service for one reason and termination of service for another. Dr. Anand Prakash wants us to hold that notwithstanding the comprehensive language of the definition of retrenchment in s. 2 (OO) the expression continues to retain its original meaning which was, according to the counsel, discharged from service on account of 'surplusage'. It is impossible to accept his submission. If the submission is right, there was no need to define the expression 'retrenchment', and in such wide terms. We cannot assume that the Parliament was undertaking an exercise in futility to give a long winded definition merely to say that the expression means what it always meant. Let us now examine the precedents of this Court to discover whether the true position in law is what has been stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ath and Ors. and Employers in Relation to Digwadih Colliery v. Their Workmen were both cases where the termination of the Workman from service was on account of surplusage and, therefore, the cases were clear cases of retrenchment. They do not throw any light on the question now at issue. In State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundaramoney a Bench of three judges of this Court consisting of Chandrachud J. (as be then was), Krishna Iyer, J., and Gupta, J., considered the question whether s. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act was attracted to a case where the order of appointment carried an automatic cessation of service, the period of employment working itself out by efflux of time and not by an act of employer, Krishna Iyer, J. who spoke for the Court observed. 'Termination .. for any reason whatsoever' are the key words. Whatever the reasons every termination spells retrenchment. So the sole question is-has the employee's service been terminated ? Verbal apparel apart, the substance is decisive: A termination takes place where a term expires either by the active step of the master of the running out of the stipulated term. To protect the weak against the strong this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Industrial Disputes Act and not contrary to the scheme of the Act. In Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. v. Shambhunath Mukharjee and Ors. Goswami, Shinghal and Jaswant Singh JJ, held that striking off the name of a workman from the rolls by the management was termination of the service which was retrenchment within the meaning of s. 2(OO) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Dr. Anand Prakash, cited before us the decision of a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in L. Rober D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and Anr. and some other cases decided by other High Courts purporting to follow the decision of this Court in Hariparsad Shivshankar Shukla v. A.D. Divikar's case, Shukla's case, we have explained. The ratio of Shukla's case in fact, has already been explained in Hindustan Steel Ltd., v. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Orissa and Ors. The decisions in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. the Presiding Officer, Labour Court Orissa and Ors., and State Bank of India v. N. Sundaramoney have, in our view, properly explained Shukla's case and have laid down the correct law. The decision of the Kerala High Court in L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
