ABDUL SABIR KHAN AHMED KHAN Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS Nos. 1 to 16 were employed as Octroi Moharirs in the services of the respondent Municipal Council, Bhahdara. Petitioner No. 17 was a confirmed peon but was doing the work of a Naka Moharir as a relieving Moharir. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 were confirmed in the year 1967. 'With a view to get more income from the Octroi Department, the Government directed the various Municipal Councils to suitably revise the rates of the octroi duty within the maximum and minimum prescribed and also directed that the expenditure on recovery of the octroi duty should be maintained at the minimum so that the new rates of octroi will give the maximum increase in the income. It is also stated that the proposal to abolish the octroi tax was under the consideration of the Government and if by increasing - the octroi tax and reducing the expenditure the Municipal Councils showed more income, they would be more benefited by the reimbursement which the Government shall be making to them in respect of the loss of that income. It Was found, so far as the respondent Municipal Council was concerned, that out of the several octroi Nakas, two Nakas were absolutely unproductive and there were others also of which expenditure was not commensurate with the income derived. It was, therefore, decided by the Municipal Council to close down five octroi Nakas and to reduce the proportionate staff which should have been necessary to man these five Octroi Nakas.

(2.) IT was in pursuance of this policy that a resolution was passed by the Municipal Council in its special meeting held on August 21, 1968, whereby it decided to close down five octroi nakas and to terminate the services of the 17 petitioners with effect from October 10, 1968. Accordingly, notices were issued to each of these 17 petitioners on September 6, 1968, directing them to hand over charge of their posts to the Octroi Superintendent on October 9, 1968, afternoon.

(3.) IT was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that before the petitioners could be retrenched by the Municipal Council, one month's notice in writing had to be given to these employees indicating the reasons for the retrenchment or they should have been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of notice. Secondly, it was contended that the workmen had to be paid at the time of the retrenchment, the compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous! service or any part thereof in excess of six months and notice in the prescribed manner has to be served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. A notice of one month terminating the services of the 17 petitioners has been given in this case by the respondent Municipal Council. It is, however, contended that the retrenchment compensation also ought to have been paid as per Clause (b) of Section 25P of the Industrial Disputes Act and since the retrenchment compensation has not been paid in this case, the termination or retrenchment is bad and the notice dated September 6, 1968, cannot have the effect of terminating the services of the 17 petitioners. It is not seriously disputed that the termination of the employment of the 17 petitioners amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and if this Octroi Department of the Municipal Council were to be held as an 'industry' then the requirement of Clause (b) of Section 25F had to be complied with by the Municipal Council. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the Octroi Department of the Municipal Council at Bhandara is an 'industry' within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such, the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act will apply to this Department. On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the respondent that the Octroi Department is not an 'industry' within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such, it was not necessary for the Municipal Council to comply with the requirements of Section 25F of the Act before terminating the services of the petitioners. This is the only point which has been canvassed before us and it needs to be considered as to whether the Octroi Department, of which the 17 petitioners were the employees, is an 'industry' within the meaning of the provisions of Section 3(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to attract the provisions of Section 25F of the said Act.