HANS RAJ Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the award dated 21. 9. 92 passed by the Labour Court upholding the termination of his service, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer to quash the impugned award.

(2.) PETITIONER joined service as clerk on 11. 2. 1982 under the Controller, Printing and Stationary Department, Punjab, Chandigarh. His service was terminated on 15. 7. 1983 during the period of probation. Industrial dispute raised by the petitioner was referred to the Labour Court, Patiala for adjudication. After hearing the parties and considering their respective cases the Labour Court held that termination of service of the workman (petitioner) was in accordance with the terms of contract of employment. The Labour Court also held that the provisions contained in the Punjab Printing and Stationery Department Service Rules, 1964 and the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 are special provisions and they would prevail over the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act') and, therefore, he was not entitled to relief of reinstatement.

(3.) THE amendment made in the definition of "retrenchment" was brought into force w. e. f. 18. 8. 1984 and, therefore, no help can be derived from clause (bb) to exclude the termination of service of the petitioner from the definition of "retrenchment' and if it is held that termination of service of the petitioner amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of the term as it stood up to 15. 9. 1983 and the same is held to be void on account of violation of the provisions of Section 25-F or other provisions contained in Chapter V-A of the Act, then the clause (bb) cannot be made use of to justify the retrenchment. The Amending Act No. 49 of the 1984 cannot be treated as retrospective in its operation and it cannot legalise or validate the termination of service of a workman which was otherwise illegal or void or inoperative. In Maye College v. Labour Court, 1983 (1) LLN 724, a Division Bench of Rajashtan High Court discussed the principles of interpretation of the statutes and held that clause (bb) added to Section 2 (oo) by the Amending Act No. 49 of 1984 was not retrospective but was prospective. The same view has been taken by Bombay. High Court in S. S. Sambra v. Chief Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Nagpur, 1992 (1) LUJ 684; by Gujarat High Court in Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. R. V. Krishna Roy, 1990 (1) LLJ 87 and by another Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the New India Assurance Company v. Central Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur, 1995 Lab. I. C. 395.