STATE OF HARYANA Vs. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the paper-book.

(2.) In the demand notice dated 21.6.2001, the workman had claimed that he had been working as skilled labourer with the petitioner at a monthly salary of Rs. 1,548.60 from 5.5.1995 to 2.5.1997. His services have been illegally retrenched by order dated 2.5.1997. The amount of retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 2908/- was never paid to him while delivering letter dated 7.5.1997. He, therefore, claims that the retrenchment is in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He also claimed that no seniority list was provided to him at the time of retrenchment. According to the workman, the petitioner has employed some other workman in his place after his retrenchment. The Management had admitted that the workman had been retrenched from service after 30.4.1997. It was denied that the workman was being paid monthly salary of Rs. 1548.60 per month. The retrenchment notice was issued to the workman on 2.5.1997 and the compensation was paid vide Voucher No. 68 dated 10.9.1997. It is agreed between the parties before the Labour Court that the compensation amount was paid on 10.9.1997. That being so, the Labour Court has correctly come to the conclusion that the compensation has been paid in violation of the provisions of Sections 25(F) of the Act. It is a settled proposition of law that retrenchment compensation has to be paid to the workman as a condition precedent. Considering the legal position under Section 25-F of the Act, the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen of Subong Tea Estate represented by the Indian Tea Employees Union v. Outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate and another, 1967 AIR(SC) 420, has observed as follows :-

(3.) The Supreme Court again considered Section 25(F) in the case of M/s. National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and others v. The State of West Bengal and another, 1967 AIR(SC) 1206, and observed as under :-