PRATAP SINGH Vs. PANCHAYAT SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed on November 27, 1965 as a Mistry for maintaining the pump-sets and for driving the tractor. He was later on appointed as tractor driver one month after. He was retrenched by order dated March 26, 1977. The said order was held to be invalid by the award, annexure 5 of the Lower Court, Udaipur, dated March 15, 1979 inter-alia on the ground that retrenchment was effected without following the mandate of Chapter V B of the Industrial Disputes Act. A writ petition against that order was also dismissed by this Court and the petitioner was reinstated with all consequential benefits. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated September 8, 1982, the petitioner was again retrenched by giving him notice of termination of his services forthwith. The termination order was enclosed with a cheque for the three months wages. It is this order dated September 8, 1982 which was challenged before this Court in this petition inter-alia on the ground that the retrenchment order dated September 8, 1982 is also violative of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, inasmuch as the petitioner was not paid the compensation as required under Section 25-F (b) alongwith the termination of his service. From November 27, 1965 to the date of termination of service petitioner has already completed continuous service of 17 years. In terms of Section 25-F (b), before petitioner's service could be terminated by way of retrenchment, compensation at the rate of 15 days wages for each completed year have to be paid. As per the completed years of service, petitioner ought to have been paid the minimum of 84 months' wages on or before the termination of the services. In the present case no notice for one month before retrenchment was given. Hence for a valid retrenchment the employer ought to have paid one month's wages in lieu of notice as required by Section 25-F (a) and 8 and half months' wages as compensation as per Section 25-F (b) totalling 9 and half months wages. As against this only three months' wages have been enclosed with the notice. Therefore, it can safely be said that the notice was not accompanied with required sum of compensation in terms of Section 25-F even if part of amount paid through Cheque is deemed to be one months' wages in lieu of notice.

(2.) THESE facts are not disputed. Therefore, the retrenchment being violative of provision of 25-F was clearly invalid. Operation of the impugned order Annexure 9 was stayed by this Court on October 13, 1982 and the petitioner was allowed to continue during the pendency of the writ petition and in pursuance of that order the petitioner continued to serve the respondents. As the situation obtains today, the petitioner has superannuated. In these circumstances, petitioner has already secured the relief of reinstatement and continuing in service.

(3.) HOWEVER, the matter does not end here. The petitioner has served the respondents from 1965 to 1992. As per affidavit and documents on record, the petitioner was retired from service on March 31, 1992. However, throughout this period the services of the petitioner were not regularised and he was not paid at any point of time salary in the regular pay scale applicable to the Pump Driver or the Tractor Driver but was paid a fixed lump-sum for each month in accordance with the minimum wages payable under the Act. In Annexure 5 and Annexure 6 it was held that the petitioner was a tractor driver about which there was no dispute. The petitioner has also filed an affidavit alongwith the orders of authority under the Payment of Wages Act, dated July 15, 1992 for showing that he has been regularly discharging the functions of Tractor Driver and his services have also been utilised as Driver and yet he was paid only Rs. 344/- per month in the last phase of his service for which he approached the Payment of Wages Authority for the recovery of illegal deduction on account of the fact that amount paid to him was even less than the minimum wages prescribed for the tractor driver. In the writ petition the petitioner has also claimed that in the circumstances of the present case, the respondents be directed to fix the salary of the petitioner according to law.