OM PRAKASH TIWARI Vs. JUDGE, LABOUR COURT, BHILWARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved of the award Annexure-9 dated 29.9.2001 passed by the learned Labour Court, Bhilwara in Labour Case No. 9/1995, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

(2.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a vehicle driver in the respondent Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Bhilwara on 15.11.1978. The petitioner has set up a case that he remained in the employment of the respondent Bank till 14.9.1992, on which date the petitioner was retrenched from service without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute through All Rajasthan Cooperative Bank Employees Union, Bhilwara. Reconciliation proceedings were held but the same failed upon which the State Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Tribunal, Bhilwara by a notification dated 26.4.1995. The Labour Court framed following issues for decision:-

(3.) The Tribunal conducted the inquiry and after examining the facts in extensor, reached to a conclusion that retrenchment of the petitioner was just and proper and was carried out after following the due procedure of law. The petitioners claim was rejected by award Annexure-9 dated 29.9.2001. Being aggrieved of the impugned award dated 29.9.2001 whereby the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner was adjudicated against him, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition. Mr. Saluja, learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the petitioner's services were terminated without following the mandatory procedure of Section 25F(a) & (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. That apart, the termination of the petitioner's services was also carried out in violation of the provisions of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that termination of the petitioner on the ground of curtailment of posts on the principle of last come first go was absolutely unjustified. He further contended that as per the document Annexure-1 which is a notice published in the news-paper on 12.9.1992, it is evident that the cheque as envisaged under Section 25F(a)& (b) of the Act of 1947 was not prepared on the same day of the publication in the news paper. The cheque towards the retrenchment compensation was prepared on 14.9.1992 and thus there was no sufficient compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act before retrenching the petitioner. He further contended that the retrenchment compensation offered to the petitioner fell short of the monthly salary by 10 paise. Thus, as per him, the termination of the petitioner from service was totally illegal.