COMMISSIONER, M.P. HOUSING BOARD Vs. HARICHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that Labour Court has set- aside the order of termination on the ground that since retrenchment compensation was paid through cheque and not in cash, therefore, there was no substantial compliance in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme court in the case of Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana) reported in (2010) 5 SCC 497.

(3.) Challenging the aforesaid order, it is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that it is an undisputed fact that along with an order of termination, cheque of one month salary along with compensation was given to the workman and that aspect has also been admitted by him in cross-examination. The facts of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Anoop Sharma (supra) are distinguishable. In the said case, contention of the employer that compensation was paid on the same day was not accepted by the Supreme Court and, therefore, it was held that payment of compensation by cheque after three months of termination of services of the employee cannot be said to be substantial compliance of provisions of Sec. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. But, it was nowhere held that every time compensation has to be paid in cash or it cannot be paid by cheque and in the present case, the workman has admitted that cheque was received on the very same day, on which, his services were terminated by impugned order dtd. 28/2/2000, therefore, it is clear that as per provisions of Sec. 25-F of the I.D. Act, the compensation was paid on the same day and thus, the findings recorded by the Labour Court are liable to be set-aside.