NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main aim of the statute of Industrial Disputes Act as is evident from its preamble and various provisions contained therein is to regulate and harmonise relationship between employers and employees for maintaining industrial peace and social harmony. THE provisions of the Act deserve interpretation keeping in view interests of both the employer, who has put his capital and expertise into the industry and the workers who by their labour equally contribute to the growth of the industry. THE Act under consideration has a historical background of industrial revolution inspired by the philosophy of Karl Marx. It is a piece of social legislation. THE Act aims at promoting social justice, interests both of employers, employees and in a democratic society, most importantly the interest of society i.e. people at large, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of the industrial activities, have to be kept in view.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 26.10.2006 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Sarvodaya Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh in I.D. No. 101 of 1998 which was published on 2.12.2006 and communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 18.12.2006, whereby the workman (respondent no. 2) has been reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefit together with seniority, the present writ petition has been filed. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the workman) was engaged on daily wages @ Rs. 20/- to carry water on 4.1.1991 till 15.3.1991. Again he was engaged at the rate of Rs. 13 per day for 149 days during the period 18.3.1991 to 1.10.1991 and was finally disengaged on 1.10.1991.

(3.) LABOUR Court in its order dated 26.10.2006 observed that the workman had completed 320 days of continuous service during the period 1.2.1992 to 31.1.1993. He had worked for more than 320 days in the relevant year. Services of the workman could not have been terminated without observing the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Dispute Act which contemplates one month prior notice before any such order is passed. LABOUR Court has held that the case of the workman was covered within the ambit of term, retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act. Since no retrenchment compensation has been paid to the petitioner, the order of termination is liable to be quashed.