RAM PRASAD SHARMA Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this writ application the only point convassed at the Bar, to which question only our attention was pres sed, is as to whether the award dated 27/4/1982 as contained in Annexure-2 is legal or not.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner has pressed our attention on the point that the award dated 27/4/1982 is illegal as the management cannot fall within the sweep of Sections 2(oo) and 25-F at the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In other words, it has been argued that without complying with the provisions of Section 25-F, the order contained in the impugned award (Annexxre-2) is wholly illegal as the petitioner's name having been struck-off from the rolls of the management amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner's name was struck-off from the rolls of the company with effect from 7/11/1973. The question as to whether this striking- off the petitioner's name from the rolls of the company amounts to retrenchment or not. A plain reading of the provisions of Section 2(oo) of the Act does bring the meaning of striking-off the name of an employee from the rolls of a company, which reads thus :-

(3.) Admittedly it does not fall within either of the Clauses (a), (b) or (c) of Section 2(oo) of the Act nor does it show that the impugned order was passed as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action. Manifestly, therefore, the order of striking-oil the name of the petitioner from the rolls of the company would be covered by the term 'retrenchment' as defined in Section 2(oo) of the Act. If it falls, as we have already said so, within the meaning of term "retrenchment" then it is well-settled that the provisions of Section 2 5-F will come into play and non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F will reader the order of retrenchment as invalid. It is admitted that if the impugned order against the petitioner by the management is brought into within the sweep of Section 2(oo) of the Act, then as a necessary corollary the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act must be brought into play and the conditions as laid down in Section 25-F must be followed which in this case, has not been done.