CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. S SATYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question is:whether the re-employment of retrenched workmen required by Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') is confined only to the category of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F who have been in continuous service for not less than one year The controversy arises in view of the wide meaning of "retrenchment" given in its definition contained in Section 2(oo) of the Act to cover all kinds of terminations for any reason whatsoever. This wide meaning is settled by the decision of this Court in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. Chandigarh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh (1990) 3 SCC 682. On behalf of the appellant (employer) it is contended that the meaning given in the definition of retrenchment contained in Section 2 (oo) is to be read subject to the context and the context in Section 25-H indicates that the word "retrenched" in Section 25-H has the same meaning as it has in Section 25-F and 25-G, reading Section 25-F along with Section 25-B since they all form a part of the same scheme in Chapter VA of the Act.

(2.) It was argued by Shri Pai, learned senior counsel for the appellant that the object of providing for re-employment of retrenched workmen by enacting Section 25-H was merely to provide for the category of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F who had been in continuous service for not less than one year and not those who had served for a lesser period and to whom Section 25-F did not apply. The present case relates to workmen who admittedly do not fall in the category of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F since they had all worked for a much lesser period. For this reason, Shri Pai contended that this factor alone excludes the applicability of Section 25-H to the respondents (workmen) in the present case. The grant of relief to them by the High Court is challenged primarily on this ground. Alternatively, Shri Pai contended that the respondents were employed only for short periods between 1974 to 1976 and therefore, grant of relief to them in the Writ Petition filed long thereafter in 1982 is unjustified on the ground of laches as well as prejudice to the other workmen employed during the intervening period who are not impleaded. Shri Pai also referred to the Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (for short 'the Rules') in support of his submission.

(3.) In reply Shri Ramachandran, learned counsel for the Respondents, contended that the wide meaning of the word 'retrenchment' given in the definition contained in Section 2(oo) cannot be curtailed by the effect of Section 25-F read with Section 25-B since Section 25-F merely prescribes the conditions precedent for retrenchment of the workmen covered thereby and not all the retrenched workmen. He argued that there are no words of limitation in Section 25-H to confine its application only to the retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F. His reply to the alternative submission was that it is not a fit case to interfere with the limited relief granted by the High Court.