P W D MAZDOOR UNION Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition petitioners impugn orders of retrenchment of the services of petitioners No.2 and 3 and other workman who have been listed at Exhibit-A to the petition. Petitioner No.1 is a trade Union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926. Petitioners No.2 and 3 and the workmen listed at Exhibit A to the petition were employed with the State of Maharashtra, Public Works Department as Class IV employees performing duties of Mazdoors, Masons, Plumbers, Watchmen, and Carpenters etc. Their services were assigned to hospitals conducted by the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC). At the relevant time maintenance of civil services at these hospitals was being looked after by the Public Works Department. A dispute arose between the Public Works Department and ESIC in regard to the liability of payment of wages of the aforesaid employees. As a result, the State Government who was not inclined to spend for the benefits of the hospitals of ESIC put an end to the arrangement between the State Government and ESIC. Consequently the posts in which the said employees were working became surplus. The State Government (Public Works Department) issued notices dated 13th August, 1987 terminating the services of these employees. Services of these employees were accordingly terminated. Copies of the notices are annexed at Exhibit-B collectively to the petition. Taking exception to the order of termination of services, the petitioners have preferred the present petition.

(2.) SHRI Kocher the learned Counsel appearing in support of the workmen has contended that the impugned orders of termination cannot be sustained in view of the fact that conditions prescribed under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short ID Act) have not been complied with. Eventhough workmen have been given one month's notice as prescribed under sub section (a) of Section 25F they have not been paid retrenchment compensation as provided under sub section (b) of Section 25F.

(3.) IT would thus appear that the payment of retrenchment compensation is made a condition precedent for a valid termination of service. In the case of State of Bombay and others V/s. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and others, reported in 1 LLJ page 251, the Supreme Court has observed thus: