DABHOI NAGARPALIKA Vs. OMKARBHAI SOMABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) : This group of petitions are by Dabhoi Nagar Palika, challenging the common award by the Labour court dated 29.9.1995, by which seven of its workmen retrenched on 15.2.1991, have been ordered to be reinstated with 75 per cent back wages on finding the retrenchment illegal and invalid. These 7 petitions are against 7 different workmen. The facts are not in dispute for the present case. All the 7 workmen, respondents were appointed on temporary basis as daily rated workmen on 1.5.1984. Their services were terminated by order dated 15.2.1991. During this period they were continuously in service. The order dated 15.2.1991 was to bring retrenchment into effect from that date. The order also recorded that along with the order in lieu of the notice period of one month the workmen are being paid wages for the notice period amounting to Rs.711.00 and that they were also simultaneously being paid Rs.2488.50 as retrenchment compensation. A hand written note also appears on the bottom of each notice that the aforesaid amount may be collected from the Cashier. These terminations were made subject matter of 7 different references before the Labour Court No.1, Vadodara, which were heard and decided by the award under challenge.

(2.) The contention of the workmen before the Labour Court was that the termination were in violation of sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("the Act" for brevity) for the reason that the wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation was not paid before the retrenchment was effected. It was, therefore, non compliance of subclauses (a) and (b) sec.25F of the Act. In this connection, it has also been the case of the workmen that in the retrenchment order, no reasons have been recorded in writing as required under sec.25F(a). The other contention raised on behalf of the workmen was that there has been no compliance of sec.25G of the Act. That is to say that while the workmen concerned have been retrenched, the persons who have been appointed after them on the establishment had been continued. Both the pleas found favour with the Labour Court. Hence the award under challenge.

(3.) In the first instance it has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the amount under subclauses (a) & (b) of sec.25F of the Act has been offered simultaneously said workman before retrenchment. The mere fact that they were asked to take delivery of cash packet from the Cash Counter, which they did not take voluntarily, before leaving will not make the payment as post retrenchment and would not result in non compliance of payment as envisaged under sec.25F of the Act. The fact that the workers failed to take cash packet of compensation of retrenchment compensation and wages in lieu of notice offered to them simultaneously while retrenching from service with effect from 15.2.1991 before they left the job, which necessiated sending of cheques by Registered Post Ack/ Due later on, would not result in default on the part of the petitioner, employer to comply the mandate of sec.25F(a) of the Act.