HANUMAN SINGH Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO questions have been agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner in assailing the order Ex. 3 dated November 17, 1987 under which the services of the petitioner were retrenched. The first is that even from the facts mentioned in Ex. 3 there has been a contravention of Clause (b) of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short hereinafter referred to as the Act' ). The second is that the petitioner was appointed along with five others, all Ex-Military personnel on Rs. 400 per month for the work of non-petitioner. The petitioner and others were only paid Rs. 400 fixed salary per month and when the petitioner raised a dispute that he and others should be paid the salary in the regular pay scale, his services have been terminated by way of punishment.

(2.) THERE cannot be any dispute that so far as Municipal Council, Jaipur is concerned, it is an 'industry' and is rendering services and as such it is governed by the provisions of the Act. This position is not disputed and cannot be disputed even by Mansingh, counsel for the non-petitioner. Even the facts which appear from Ex. 3 are that the petitioner was appointed on March 15, 1985 on consolidated salary of Rs. 400 per month on the post of Chowkidar and the services of the petitioner were retrenched on November 17, 1987, the day Ex. 3 was issued. The total period of service, if it is counted will be two years eight months and two days. The petitioner was appointed on Rs. 400 per month. Therefore, in lieu of one month's notice pay he was entitled to Rs. 400 and in view of provisions of Clause (b) of Section 25-F of the Act he was also entitled to compensation equivalent to fifteen day's average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. The petitioner was entitled even as per Ex. 3 to Rs. 600. The reason is that he was entitled to Rs. 400 for compensation for a period of one month for two years' service and was further entitled to Rs. 200 as 15 days' compensation for the remaining part of the service which exceeded six months. If that be so there cannot be any dispute and no dispute has been raised before us that the amount which was ordered to be paid to the petitioner under the provisions of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act fell short of the amount to which the petitioner was entitled. Thus, it is a case where we are of the opinion that there is contravention of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act. This Court has taken a consistent view that in case facts are not disputed and this Court has come to the conclusion that there is contravention of any of the Clauses (a) or (b) of Section 25f of the Act, an employee could not be relegated to a remedy under Section 10 of the Act. Mr. Keshote has also raised other grounds but as we are satisfied that the first ground agitated by learned counsel is sufficient to allow the writ petition, we need not discuss other grounds before us.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, we hereby allow the writ petition, quash the order Ex. 3 dated November 17, 1987 being in contravention of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act. The petitioner will be considered to be in service continuously and shall be re-instated with full back wages. Costs made easy.