PARMANAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will dispose of eleven writ petition bearing numbers 566, 553, 736, 877, 912, 1049, 1175 and 1296 of 1991, 8230 of 1988, 4444 & 8790 to 8806 of 1992 in which common questions of law and fact arise. Since the main arguments were addressed in civil writ petition No. 566 of 1991, facts are being taken from this petition.

(2.) Petitioners who are workmen with the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging their orders of retrenchment on the sole ground that conditions precedent to retrenchment as enumerated in Section 25-N of the Act had not been complied with before they were retrenched.

(3.) Petitioners were working as store-keepers in different retail outlets maintained by the Haryana State Federation of Consumer Cooperative Wholesale Stores Limited, Chandigarh (hereinafter called 'CONFED'). CONFED is an apex cooperative society deemed to be registered under the Haryana Cooperative Societies Act, 1984. Its primary activity is to distribute essential commodities to the consumers and for this purpose it has opened various outlets throughout the State of Haryana and outside. There were more than 500 such retail outlets and not more than two or three persons were employed on any one outlet. In addition to these outlets, CONFED also owns a manufacturing unit at Faridabad which is registered as a factory under the Factories Act, 1948 where washing soap, polythene bags, exercise note-book are manufactured in addition to printing of bill books etc. In this factory 16 persons are employed including the managerial and supervisory staff. Due to heavy losses suffered for sometime in the past, the Board of Directors in their meeting held on December 12, 1989 decided to reduce the strength of its staff by abolishing some posts. It was also decided that the retail outlets in excess of 500 would be closed and the Managing Director was authorized to close on the basis of their viability and area population served by them. It was in pursuance of this decision that the petitioners received notices for retrenchment. There is no dispute that while effecting retrenchment, the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have been complied with but the management did not comply with the provisions of Section 25-N. As already observed earlier, the solitary ground on which the retrenchment is challenged is that the provisions of Section 25-N which, according to the petitioners, were applicable ought to have been followed.