BHUSHAN LAL SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners who were working on different posts in the respondent No. 2 Company for the last many years were retrenched from service, with effect from March 3, 1982. They along with other retrenched workmen raised an industrial dispute which was ultimately referred to respondent No. 1 for adjudication, who declined the reference of the petitioners and other workmen vide award dated August 3, 1987 (Annexure P-2 ). Similarly, the workmen in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 591 and 2279 of 1988 also, whose services were also retrenched on the same date and whose references were also declined by the aforesaid impugned award dated August 3, 1989, as also the petitioners, have prayed for quashing the impugned award. Since common question of law and fact is involved in all the three writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) THE sole question before the Labour Court-respondent No. 1 was, whether the termination of services of the workmen was justified and in order? If not, to what relief/exact amount of compensation were they entitled? The Labour Court observed that the termination of the workmen was legal, valid and in order.

(3.) THE impugned award has been challenged by the petitioners mainly on the grounds, firstly, that before making retrenchment, no permission of the Government was obtained as envisaged under Subsection (2) and Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act, hereinafter referred to 'the Act' and secondly, the petitioner-workmen were not paid compensation/wages for the period of notice nor any notice for the period as provided under the provisions of Section 25-N of Act, before they were retrenched, was given to them.