RAJENDRA PRASAD JENA Vs. ORISSA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arise out of similar facts and involve common questions of law and are disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners seek to challenge their retrenchment from the Orissa State Electricity Board effected by an order in Anncxure-1. The order passed on 19-7-1983 shows the services of the petitioners being terminated as being no longer required with effect from 1-8-1983. The orders were forwarded to the petitioners on 25-7-1983.

(2.) MR. M. R. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioners has, in assailing the orders, urged two contentions, namely, such retrenchment being violative of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also of Section 25-N of the same Act. So far as the second submission is concerned, even though there is no dispute about the fact that Section 25-N of Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act is applicable to the Orissa State Electricity Board by virtue of Section 25-K of the Act, yet absolutely no averment having been made in the writ petitions regarding any violation of the provisions of Section 25-N, it is not possible to accept the submission of the order having contravened the provisions of the section entitling the petitioner to any relief on that account.

(3.) AS regards the first submission, it has been urged in the writ petitions that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act were not complied with inasmuch as no notice as required under Sub-section (a) of the section was given nor any compensation in lieu thereof was offered in accordance with law nor any compensation as required under Section 25-F (b) was also paid. It has been further averred that no notice of retrenchment as required under Section 25-F (c), was also given to the State Government or its authorised officer. Such facts stated in the writ petitions are not countered in the counter affidavit filed and on the contrary it appears from Annexure-C to the counter affidavit that even though the retrenchments were made effective from 1-8-1983, yet by the order passed on 1-8-1983 compensations were directed to be paid on the next day i. e. on 2-8-1983. The orders were communicated to the Sub-divisional Officer (Electrical) to the E. S. O. Sukinda and there is no evidence as to when the orders were communicated to the petitioners and when they were called upon to receive the compensations. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the Annexure-C itself that compensations have not been paid prior to the retrenchments which is a mandatory requirement under the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such, there is no denial of the fact that there was violation of the provisions of Section 25-F in effecting the retrenchments.