SOMASEKHARAN NAIR Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, formerly an employee under second respondent seeks to quash Ext. P1 Award. He complained of denial of employment. First respondent (Labour Court) found that, "there was denial of employment from 16/11/1981", and that the order of retrenchment was illegal. But, instead of ordering reinstatement, the Labour Court awarded Rs. 2,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner, relying on the decisions reported in Mohan Lal v. The Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd ( AIR 1981 SC 1253 ), Hari Mohan Rastogi v. Labour Court and another ( AIR 1984 SC 502 ), and Sant Raj and another v. O. P. Singla and another ( AIR 1985 SC 617 ) submitted that, petitioner was entitled to reinstatement, as retrenchment was illegal.

(3.) Retrenchment was illegal and was not in compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Notwithstanding that, counsel for respondents submits that discretion is available to the Labour Court in moulding relief. Though reinstatement is the normal rule it is not the invariable rule. It was further submitted that, in exercising the jurisdiction under Art.226, this court need examine only whether the Labour Court acted within its jurisdiction or committed any error apparent on the face of the award in the exercise of discretion. According to learned counsel, there are special facts and circumstances justifying departure from the normal rule of reinstatement. Such circumstances are that, petitioner was only casual employee, that there was no appointment order, and that retrenchment was occasioned by closure of the group office.