JOY XAVIER Vs. MADURA COATS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE central question involved in this Writ Appeal is whether the termination of service of the appellant-workman by the respondent-Management would amount to 'retrenchment' coming within the meaning of the said term defined in S. 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the act ).

(2.) BY Ext. P13 award passed by the Labour Court, ernakulam on 14. 5. 1991 it was found that the termination of service of the workman did not amount to 'retrenchment' and hence he was not entitled to be re-instated with or without back wages or to any other relief. This award was challenged by the workman in O. P. No. 7153 of 1992. The learned single judge after hearing found that the second respondent-Management had terminated the service of the workman under clause 21 (c) of the Certified Standing Orders for the reason that he unauthorisedly absented himself from duty and hence termination was not illegal. Challenging the above conclusion of the learned single judge the present Writ Appeal has been filed by the workman.

(3.) " (oo) 'retrenchment' means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include (a) (b) (bb) (c) The counsel for the appellant points out that clauses (a)to (c) to sub-s. 2 (oo) do not apply of the facts of this case and that the main para of the clause alone is relevant. In other words it is a termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. In view of the wide language employed and particularly by the use of the words 'termination for any reason whatsoever' the expression termination included and covered in its fold all cases of termination of service except those mentioned in the definition.