MANOHAR BHATIA Vs. P K RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the award passed on 11-3-2002 by the learned Presiding Officer of 4th Labour Court in which the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent in service with continuity of service and full backwages with effect from 5-2-1998. The brief facts of the case are as under :?

(2.) THE respondent was appointed as a Stenographer in the petitioner company and he was in employment with effect from 14-1-1993. On 5-1-1998, it is the case of the petitioner that the company issued a notice to the respondent for retrenchment on the ground of poor business and gave a 30 days notice in compliance with the provisions of section 25fa of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 13-2-1998 the respondent was offered the dues of his retrenchment compensation of sum of Rs. 10,437. 50 in accordance with the provisions of section 25fb of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. On 27-4-1998 the respondent returned the said cheque and contested the case of retrenchment from the job.

(3.) PURSUANT thereto the respondent has invoked the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and has raised a reference being Reference (IDA) No. 383 of 1999, inter alia seeking that his termination by a letter dated 5-1-1998 be set aside and he be reinstated in service with effect therefrom. He has also sought the demand as and by way of backwages from the date of his termination. In the said reference, it was inter alia contended by the respondent that there was an unlawful termination by notice dated 5-1-1998 and that the petitioner company has not complied with the provisions of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 insofar as it pertains to retrenchment of an employee from service. It was also the case of the respondent that prior to his removal from service, the petitioner appointed one R. Lakshmanan on 12-12-1997 on a lesser salary as a Stenographer in service of the petitioner company. On the aforesaid basis, he has sought the relief as stated hereinabove. The said reference was resisted by the petitioner herein inter alia contending that they have complied with the provisions of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as they have given 30 days notice and have tendered the compensation for retrenchment as contemplated under the provisions of the said Act. It has been therefore contended by the petitioner before the Labour Court that there is no removal or termination of services of the respondent from the company but due to poor business the said respondent has been retrenched in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court has considered the said reference after giving opportunity to both the parties to lead oral as well as documentary evidence. The learned Labour Court in its order has come to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the provisions of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as the letter dated 5-1-1998 is not a retrenchment notice as contemplated therein. In paragraph 15 of the said Award the Labour Court has held as under :?