STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. DHARAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India impugns the validity of the order dated 13th November, 2006 passed by the State Industrial Court, Chhattisgarh in Civil Appeal No. 40/C.G.I.R. Act/A -11/2006 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by the Labour Court, Raipur (Annexure P/3). The main issue involved in this case was as to whether the Respondent was entitled to benefits of provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1947'). The Labour Court, after having examined the case of the Respondent herein, held that the Respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the proceeding year thus, the Respondent could not have been retrenched/removed without following provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947. The Petitioner herein i.e. the State contested the case on the ground that the Petitioner was a temporary employee, but did not rebut the factual position that the Respondent had worked for more than 240 days in the proceeding year. Accepting the factual position, the Labour Court by order dated 12.04.2006 held that the Respondent was not retrenched/removed in accordance with Section 25F of the Act, 1947, and directed reinstatement without back wages. The Petitioner -State preferred an appeal before the State Industrial Court and vide order dated 13.11.2006 (Annexure P/1) the learned Industrial Court confirmed the findings recorded by the Labour Court and held that admittedly, the provisions of Section 25F of the Act, 1947 was not followed before discontinuation of service of the Respondent. Further, it is not a case of regularisation.

(2.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and gone through the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is evident that the respondent was found to have completed mandatory 240 days service to attract applicability of provisions of section 25F of the Act, 1947. He was retrenched/removed from the service. It is also admitted that the provisions of section 25F of the Act, 1947 was not complied with.