SANTOSH GUPTA Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Santosh Gupta, the appellant workman (a woman), was employed in the State Bank of Patiala, the Mall, Patiala, from July 13, 1973, till August 21, 1974, when her services were terminated. Though there were some breaks in service for a few days, those breaks are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this case though we may have to advert to them in another connection. Despite the breaks, the workman had admittedly worked for 240 days, in the year preceding August 21, 1974. According to the workman the termination of her services was 'retrenchment' within the meaning of that expression in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, since it did not fall within any of the 3 excepted cases mentioned in Section 2 (oo). Since there was 'retrenchment', it was bad for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 25F 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 workmen to pass the test which would have enabled her to be confirmed in the service. Therefore, it was not retrenchment within the meaning of Sec. 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(2.) Section 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 reason 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 excess of six months and (c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or any such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. There is a proviso to cl. (a) which dispenses with the necessity for the notice contemplated by the clause if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies the date for the termination of service.

(3.) The expression retrenchment is specially defined by Section 2 (oo) of the Act and is as follows: