STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. INDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent in the writ petition was engaged as a daily waged workman by the petitioners herein. He claimed that though, he had rendered "continuous service" under the petitioners herein for not less than one year, yet he was retrenched in blatant transgression of the mandate of Section 25 -F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 envisaging therein an enshrined mandatory obligation upon the employer to, preceding retrenchment of the workman, as also, to render it valid, serve one month's notice in writing upon him indicating therein the reasons for retrenchment or the employer defraying to him in lieu of notice, wages for the period of notice, besides in case one month's notice in writing has come to be served upon the workman, a valid retrenchment/disengagement would occur only when the period of notice has expired. Therefore, he contends that his retrenchment/disengagement at the instance of the petitioners is non est and is liable to be quashed and set aside. The grievance aforesaid of the respondent constrained the "appropriate government" to formulate a reference for adjudication by the Labour Court -com -Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala. The reference which was to be adjudicated upon by the Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal Dharamshala was couched in the hereinafter extracted phraseology: -

(2.) THE learned Labour Court -cum -Industrial Tribunal, on a consideration of the material as it was seized with comprised in the mandays chart divulging the period of service rendered by the workman/respondent herein with the petitioners herein/his employers, inasmuch as its displaying that he had in the year preceding to his retrenchment rendered 240 days of service under the petitioners/his employers, was constrained to conclude that despite his having rendered the requisite period of "continuous service" within the ambit of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Dispute Act, his retrenchment having not been preceded by compliance by the petitioners/his employers with the mandatory obligation envisaged under Section 25 -F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, rendered his disengagement/retrenchment to be liable to be quashed and set aside. The relevant provisions of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act read as under:

(3.) THE definition of the phrase "continuous service" exists in Section 25 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act which provisions are extracted hereinbelow: -