SANTOKH SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, according to the findings recorded by the Labour Court, Jalandhar, was admittedly employed in service as a Works Inspector from March 1, 1973 and was retrenched on July 31, 1976. It is further the admitted case between the parties that the petitioner was retrenched without paying retrenchment compensation as was the mandatory requirement of law as contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). the Labour Court while holding that the petitioner who worked for more than a year and while recording further finding that he was retrenched under Section 25-F of the Act inasmuch as the workman was neither given one month's notice nor one month's salary in lieu thereof besides 15 days' wages for a completed year of service, has ultimately ordered that the petitioner be paid Rs. 1,000/- only, in lieu of one month's salary for not giving one month notice and also one and half months' salary since he had worked for three completed years. By virtue of this petition, the legality of the order of the Labour Court as regards the grant of relief has been challenged.

(2.) It has been vehemently argued by Mrs. Bindra learned counsel for the petitioner that once it has been found and which is the correct finding that Section 25-F of the Act has been contravened, there was no other alternative with the Labour Court but to order the reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. A bare perusal of Section 25-F of the Act makes it clear that if a workman employed in an Industry has remained in continuous service for more than a year, he shall not be retrenched by that employer until and unless such a workman has been given one month notice or in lieu of one month's notice, the workman has been paid the wages for the period of notice. It is further the provision in Section 25-F of the Act that the workman has to be paid at the time of retrenchment the compensation equivalent to 15 days' average pay for every completed year of continuous service. Since this has not been done in the instant case, the Labour Court has apparently committed an error in only ordering the payment of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In these circumstances, the reinstatement with full back wages with continuity of service was the only course which could have been adopted by the Labour Court. By not doing so, the Labour Court has acted wholly without jurisdiction. In this respect the learned counsel has sought to place reliance upon the following judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court of India in Surendera Kumar Verma etc. V. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum Labour Court, New Delhi, 1981 AIR(SC) 422being the position of law, I am of the view that the retrenchment of the petitioner was void ab initio and the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with continuity of service and back wages unless he has remained gainfully employed.

(3.) The petition is consequently allowed. The order of the Labour Court is quashed and the order of termination of services of the petitioner is held to be void ab initio and he is ordered to be reinstated with full back wages and continuity of service. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.