UNION OF INDIA Vs. MAKAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri V.K. Kohli, the learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Shri LP. Kohli, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Shri LP. Gairola, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. l states that even though he has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the workman, Shri P.C. Jinan, the learned Counsel would appear and argue the matter.

(2.) The workman contended that he had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and that he was entitled to be paid retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was not paid. The workman denied that he ever received one month's notice or retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Act.

(3.) The Tribunal, after considering the matter, held that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and, therefore, was entitled for retrenchment compensation. The Tribunal further found that the employer could not prove that they had given one month's notice and also could not prove that the retrenchment compensation was paid to the workman. The Tribunal further found that in any case 15 days retrenchment compensation was insufficient as per the provision of Section 25-F, in as much as, the workman had worked for more than 1-1/2 years. In the light of the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal concluded that the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman was neither legal nor justified and, consequently directed the reinstatment of the workman with full backwages and all consequential benefits.