EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. MAGHA RAM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No one has appeared for respondents inspite of service.

(2.) The respondent-workman was appointed as daily rated chowkidar in the petitioner's establishment on 1.6.85 and his services were terminated on 23.9.88. The said termination was alleged to be by way of retrenchment, an Industrial dispute was raised about the validity of said retrenchment amongst other grounds, the retrenchment was challenged on the basis that full salary in lieu of one month's notice as required under section 25F(a) was not paid to the workman at the time of retrenchment, but lesser amount was offered. The fact that the workman was a daily rated workman was not in dispute. IL" is also not in dispute that out of total amount offered to the workman 26 days wages as per daily rate of wage payable to workman only was paid as one month's remuneration in lieu of one month's notice. At the relevant time the daily wages for daily rated worker was Rs. 14 per day, accordingly Rs. 364 for 26 days were paid to the workman as per the present appellant. The Labour Court has found that requirement of law is one month's notice or wages for one month in lieu of a notice as a condition precedent of valid retrenchment under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) According to Labour Court one month means 30 days and if a workman is employed with reference to daily period and if he is not given one month's notice before retrenchment, for the purpose of computing the wages in lieu of one month's notice the period of one month has to be taken to be 30 days for a daily rated workman and not 26 days only.