INDIRAKANT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, challenges the order dated 22. 2. 2007 delivered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5479 of 2006, thereby dismissing the Writ Petition of present appellant and also vacating the interim relief. Heard learned counsel for respective parties, by mutual consent, for final disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) APPELLANT resumed services with Respondent No. 3 on 1. 6. 1986 as a labourer on daily wages under Employment Guarantee Scheme ("egs" for short ). He continued to work as such till his services were terminated with effect from 1. 8. 1991. Notice of termination dated 1. 7. 1991 was served upon him. By subsequent communication dated 30. 8. 1991/2. 9. 1991, he was asked to collect an amount of Rs. 2456/= towards retrenchment compensation under Section 25 (F) of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (henceforth, "i. D. Act" for brevity's sake ). Being aggrieved by the action, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the MRTU and PULP Act" for the sake of brevity) before the Labour Court, Jalna, registered as Complaint (ULP) No. 45 of 1991, on 10. 9. 1991. He complained of Respondent No. 3 indulging into unfair labour practices as per item 1 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971. The learned Labour Judge was pleased to dismiss the complaint, on 20. 7. 2004. He rejected the plea of the complainant that there was no notice of one month. (It was contended by complainant that the notice was served upon him only on 5. 7. 1991, but the learned Labour Judge found that it was served upon him on 1. 7. 1991 itself ). Learned Labour Judge also rejected the plea that there was no compliance of Section 25 (F) of the I. D. Act. Impliedly, he has accepted the contention raised by the Respondent that Section 25 (F) is not applicable, although reasons on this count are not crystal clear. Appellant approached the Industrial Court with a revision, registered as ULP Revision No. 20 of 2004. The learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Court at Jalna, dismissed revision vide his judgment and order dated 7. 7. 2006, by observing that it is not mandatory to offer retrenchment compensation with termination notice. Writ Petition No. 5479 of 2006 titled as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenged the concurrent dismissals of appellant's complaint and revision by Labour Court and Industrial Court. It prayed for appropriate writ or directions declaring that the impugned notice dated 1. 7. 1991 terminating the services of the appellant is violative of provisions of law and, therefore, quashment of the same. Although there is no express prayer regarding reinstatement, learned Advocate for the appellant, during his arguments, has submitted that quashment of retrenchment would amount in effect reinstatement and, therefore, prayer for reinstatement, according to learned counsel, must be read within the womb of prayer for quashment of termination. Learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, upheld the concurrent findings of Labour Court and Industrial Court that requirement of Section 25 (F) was complied with. By relying upon an unreported judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in L. P. A. No. 65 of 2003 delivered on 22. 1. 2003, learned Single Judge held that the claim of permanency cannot be countenanced, in view of the fact that there was no work available to the daily wager and mere completion of 240 days work cannot be a reason for seeking permanency in the government department. Learned Single Judge also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Secretary, State of Karnakata vs. Uma Devi and others, 2006 (4) SCC 44. It appears that, learned Single Judge considered the Writ Petition as one under Article 227 and finding that there was no need for interference by High Court in its supervisory jurisdiction, has dismissed the Writ Petition.

(3.) WHILE arguing for the appellant, learned Counsel Shri P. G. Deshmukh has placed reliance upon Section 25 (F) (b) of the I. D. Act, together with observations of the Supreme Court in the matter of Pramod Jha vs. State of Bihar and ors. Reported at 2003 (4) Mh. L. J. 214. He canvassed only one submission that, by termination notice dated 1. 7. 1991, appellant's services were terminated with effect from 1. 8. 1991. Thus, 31. 7. 1991 was his last working day. Intimation to collect retrenchment compensation under Section 25 (F) dated 31. 8. 1991 was no compliance of the requirement of Section 25 (F) (b ). Therefore, termination stands vitiated for non compliance of mandatory requirement of the statute. Section 25 (F) (b) reads thus: