MANI RAM Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Judgment we dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 12538, 12718 to 12721, 14418 and 16919 to 16921 of 1994 as common question of law and tact is involved in all of them with regard to the compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F ot the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act' ).

(2.) THE petitioners in all the petitions have given challenge to the award dated December 30, 1993 of the Presiding Officer, Lahour Court, Ambala, vide which it was held that there was no merit in the reference of the workmen. Resultantly, none of the workmen was entitled to any relief. It is the admitted case of the parties that each of the petitioners had completed 240 days of service before their services were terminated by the management. It is also the common case of the parties that retrenchment compensation was not paid in cash on the day when the services of the petitioners were terminated. The management took the action which can be incorporated as follows:- "it may be noted from ail persons as mentioned in the list attached that they should collect their retrenchment compensation on February 17, 1983 and February 18, 1983 from this office. Sd/ executive Engineer U. O. N0. 568/hc II Dated February 16, 1983. Yet another letter was written by the office, which reads as follows :-"your retrenchment compensation, pay and allowances for the month of 2/83 have been drawn and are lying in this office. You are requested to collect the same at once. Please acknowledge the receipt of this letter. Sd/ executive Engineer/hc II WYC, PE Project, HSEB, Bhudkalan". This letter is dated February 25, 1983. The services of all the petitioners were terminated on February 20, 1983. The stand of the management before the Labour Court was each of the workmen was asked to collect the compensation before February 20, 1983. Every effort has been made by the management but the offer to receive the retrenchment compensation has not been accepted by the workmen. Thus the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have been complied with. It was also the case of the management before the Labour Court that the workmen served the demand notice after a period of four years and for that reason the workmen are not entitled to be reinstated into service. The claim is stale. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the workmen had the knowledge with regard to the collection of the retrenchment compensation amount from the office of the Executive Engineer, Bhudkalan and that the workmen could collect the compensation on February 17, 1983 and February 18, 1983 before the expiration of the notice, which was to expire on February 20, 1983. Since the workmen failed to collect the amount from the office on the said dates, the management sent the amount through the money order, which was not accepted by the workmen and the report of the Postal Authorities indicating "refused" cannot be doubted in this regard. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that since the management had offered retrenchment compensation to the workmen well within time and the workmen, in fact, deliberately chose not to accept the same, for this reason there is no justification in the reference of the workmen and they are not entitled to any relief either by way of reinstatement into service, continuity of service or the payment of backwages.

(3.) AS I submitted at the very first instance, the point for determination in this case is whether the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act have been complied with properly by the management when it simply gave a notice to the workmen to collect the retrenchment compensation on February 17, 1983 and February 18, 1983. It has also to be seen whether the management is absolved of its statutory duty by sending the money order after the expiry of the date of the notice, i. e. February 20, 1983. Section 25-F of the Act lays down as follows :-