K SATHIARTHY Vs. NEW ERA MANUFACTURING CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants in these cases were employees of the New Era Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (In liquidation), whose services were terminated, pending proceedings for the winding up of the said company through court. The petition for the winding up of the company was presented in this Court on 10-3-1965. Thereupon the management issued notices dated 29-3-1965 to the applicants in C. A. Nos. 327, 328, 333 and 334, terminating their services with effect from 30-4-1965. This Court appointed a provisional liquidator for the company on 24-6-1965. He took charge of the company on 3-7-1965, and closed down its business on the said date. On 20-7-1965, the Provisional Liquidator issued notices to the applicants in C. A. Nos. 332 and 335 terminating their services with retrospective effect from 3-7-1965. The company was finally ordered to be wound up on 22-12-1966. The applicants then claimed before the Official Liquidator retrenchment compensation under S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to them, the notices issued for terminating their services were invalid; and they ceased to be employees of the company only on 22-12-1966, consequent on the order of winding up passed on that date. On that basis, they claimed the following amounts:-

(2.) I shall now read S.25F and 25FFF:-

(3.) In support of his contention that S.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act applies to the case and that the applicants are entitled to the amounts claimed by them, their learned counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha AIR 1960 SC 610 , and contended that the termination of the applicants' services was invalid, and that they are entitled to get arrears of salary until their services were properly terminated. That was a case of retrenchment of employees without a valid notice under S.25F of the Act; and the Supreme Court held that a valid notice was a condition precedent, and that the retrenchment was invalid, as there was no such notice. The question of compensation does not seem to have arisen in that case. When an employee is unlawfully retrenched, he is ordinarily entitled to an order for reinstatement or adequate compensation in lieu of that. The quantum of compensation that such an employee may be entitled to get in respect of the period from the date of his wrongful discharge till the date of reinstatement would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, and it cannot be said to be equivalent to the salary which he would have earned during that period, irrespective of other relevant considerations. These matters have no relevancy; and the above decision has no application to the instant case, as it falls under S.25FFF of the Act.