SUNDER SINGH Vs. BEAS CONSTRUCTION BOARD NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNDER Singh and another have filed this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the discharge notices dated 22nd Sept. 1977, copy Annexures 'p-5' and 'p-6', by which the services of the petitioners were terminated with effect from 28th Oct. 1977 (A. N. ).

(2.) THIS petition came up for hearing before me and my learned brother Surinder Singh, J. on Dec. 12, 1977. Mr. Gopal Mahajan, Advocate, who appeared on that date for the petitioners, raised a contention that the petitioners were entitled to the payment of retrenchment compensation along with the impugned notices, as the cases of the petitioners were covered by the provisions of S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that the notices have not been served in accordance with law, inasmuch as no compensation amount in respect of retrenchment was paid at the time of the issuance of the notices. In support of his contentions, reliance was placed on an unreported decision of a Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 3230 of 1977 (Raghubir Singh v. Beas Construction Board), decided on December 6, 1977. ** On the other hand, the stand taken by Mr. Kuldip Singh, Bar-at-law, learned counsel for the respondents was that the cases of the petitioners were covered by the provisions of Section 25-FFF of the Act and that legally it was not necessary to pay the amount of retrenchment compensation along with the discharge notices.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel or the parties, as is evident from our order dated 12th Dec. 1977, we did not agree with Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel, that the petitioners' case was covered by the provisions of S. 25-F of the Act. Having arrived at that finding, the petition was liable to be dismissed. But Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently contended that the in the interest of justice it was necessary to deal with the question whether it was legally essential to pay retrenchment compensation along with the discharge notices in cases falling under S. 25-FFF of the Act, as had been held by the learned Judges in Raghubir Singh's case. This contention had been advanced by the learned counsel on the basis that the view taken by the Bench in Raghubir Singh's case did not lay down the correct law and in case that view was allowed to stand then the Bhakra Construction Board was likely to suffer immensely, Mr. Kuldip Singh brought to our notice a couple of decisions of the Supreme Court tot show that the view taken in Raghubir Singh's case deserved to be reconsidered. Finding some force in the contention of Mr. Kuldip Singh, we heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and ultimately prima facie found that the Bench decision in Raghubir Singh's case deserved to be reconsidered by a larger Bench. Accordingly, by our order dated 12th December, 1977, it was ordered that the papers of this case be laid before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for appropriate orders. It is in these circumstances that the present Bench has been constituted for deciding the following question:-" Whether retrenchment compensation has to be paid along with the notice even in the cases falling under S. 25-FFF of the Act?"