CHEDILAL DAHIYA Vs. MANAGER CHRISTUKULA MISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order dated 31.8.2010 passed in Case No. 37/2008/ID Act (Reference) by the Labour Court, Satna, whereby it has decided the reference against the petitioner holding that his termination was legal and proper.

(2.) In the year 1998 the petitioner was appointed as bus conductor in the Christukula Mission Higher Secondary School, Village Pateri, District Satna, of which respondent nos. 1 and 2 are Manager and Principal. On 1.2.2008, due to economic, managerial and administrative problems, the governing body of the school by a resolution decided to sell all the seven buses and to retrench drivers and conductors of the buses by paying them retrenchment compensation as per law. The buses were then sold to contractor Khurshid Alam Hashmi on 24.3.2008. Thereafter, respondent no.2 by letter dated 28.3.2008 terminated the services of petitioner with effect from 31.3.2008 by paying wages for the period of one month in lieu of one month's notice. The letter of termination was sent along with a cheque of Rs.30,349/- of the same date i.e. 28.3.2008 to the petitioner by registered post which he received on 2.4.2008. Rs.30,349/-included wages for one month and the amount of retrenchment compensation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute inter-alia on the ground that his termination was in violation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, "the Act") and prayed for his reinstatement with back wages. The Labour Court, after appreciating the evidence on record by the impugned award, has held that the termination of petitioner was legal and proper. The Labour Court, however, directed the respondents to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the petitioner because he received the termination order by registered post on 2.4.2008 though it was made effective from 31.3.2008.

(3.) The only submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner is that, although the services of petitioner were terminated with effect from 31.3.2008 he had been paid retrenchment compensation on 2.4.2008 and, therefore, the Labour Court committed an illegality in holding that the provisions of section 25-F of the Act were complied with. According to the learned counsel, since the petitioner had received retrenchment compensation after the date of his termination, there was no compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 25-F and this vitiates his termination order. To support his submission, the learned counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Anoop Sharma v. Executive Engineer, 2010 5 SCC 497. The learned counsel for respondents, in reply, defended the validity of the impugned award and relied upon The Management of Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Industrial Tribunal, 1965 AIR(SC) 1503.