LAKSHMI PANDIT Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as a 't' Mate in the Construction Cell of the Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) on 19 May 1981. On 30 April 1982, the petitioner was informed that on account of reduction in workload his services will not be required after 30 July 1982. This was three months' notice. He was also asked to contact the Senior Accounts Officer for collection of his dues "on or before 30 July 1982".

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the action the petitioner served a notice of demand and since no settlement could be reached, the Government of Haryana referred the case for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad. The claim of the petitioner was considered along with that of another workman. Vide its order of 20 May 1986, the Tribunal found that the termination of the services was justified and in order. Aggrieved by the award, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. In response to the notice, a written statement has been filed through Sri S. P. Dhingra, Superintending Engineer.

(3.) SMT. Abha Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the Board had failed to comply with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, inasmuch as the retrenchment compensation had not been paid "at the time of retrenchment" and no seniority list as contemplated under Rule 77 had been displayed on the notice-board. These two contentions have been raised even before the Tribunal. Section 25-F reads as under: