NATIONAL GARAGE NAGPUR Vs. GONSALVES J

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sri D. B. Padhye, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that both the respondents 2 and 3 were in error in holding that termination of respondent 1's services amounted to retrenchment. According to Sri Padhye, a termination of service brought about in accordance with the provisions of a standing order does not amount to retrenchment and, therefore, respondent 1 was not entitled to get any retrenchment compensation as a condition precedent to the termination of his services under S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He places relience on two decisions of this Court, one in Municipal Corporation, Bombay v. Labour Appellate Tribunal [1957 - II - L.L.J. 37] and another in Central Potteries, Ltd. v. Kalidas Ganpat [(1958) Special Civil Applications Nos. 347, 348 and 349 of 1957, decided by Chainani, C.J., and Badkas J., on 5 February 1958 (Unrep.)]. These two decisions no doubt support the contention of Sri Padhye, but, however, the decision to which reference has been made by respondent 3 and another decision of this Court in Dewli v. State Industrial Court [1959 - I - L.L.J. 475], support the view taken by respondents 2 and 3 in this case. In view of this divergence of opinion in this Court, the question that arises for consideration in this case will have to be referred to a large Bench. The question that arises is : "Whether termination of service simpliciter, whether on giving one month's notice under the provisions of a standing order or otherwise, amounts to retrenchment attracting the provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act." [The papers be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for necessary order.] Chainani, C.J.

(2.) The question referred to the Full Bench is : "Whether termination of service simpliciter, whether on giving one month's notice under the provisions of a standing order or otherwise. amounts to retrenchment attracting the provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act." Clause (oo) in S. 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, defines the word "retrenchment" to mean as follows : "'retrenchment' means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include - (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill health."

(3.) Section 25F provides for payment of compensation when a workman is retrenched. The question, which we have to determine, is whether the termination of services simpliciter, that to, without disclosing to the workman the reasons for his discharge, amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of the above definition, so as to entitle the workman to compensation under the provisions of S. 25F of the Act.