Jagat Singh vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Another

Arvind Kumar, J.—Petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing award dated 25.10.2005 (Annexure P/1), vide which the Labour Court, Gurgaon, has dismissed his claim statement.

Petitioner-workman on 2.10.1995, joined the services of respondent-department as Mali-cum-Chowkidar. On 29.3.1997, his services were terminated by the department on the ground that the same were no longer required. On termination of his services, the workman served a demand notice upon the department seeking reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages. On failure of the reconciliation proceedings, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to the Labour Court for adjudication the workman filed claim statement before the Labour Court taking the .plea that his services have been-terminated illegally without any notice or payment of any compensation. Upon notice of the claim statement, the department denied the allegations levelled by the workman slating that the services of the workman were terminated as the same were no longer required and that in lieu of requisite one month''s advance notice he was paid a sum of Rs. 3,097 through a demand draft. It was pleaded that in case of availability of work in future, the services of the workman would be availed.

In support of their respective case, evidence was led by the parties. Upon appreciation thereof, the learned Lahour Court vide the impugned award held that the department had (sic)

Learned Counsel for the petitioner-workman has referred to the statement of MW-1 Pardeep Kumar, S.D.O., who admitted in cross-examination that when the petitioner-workman was working, with the respondent-department at that time more than 100 workers were employed, and has developed the argument that Section 25-N of the Act was applicable in the present case and it was obligatory for the respondent-department to give three months'' notice as required by Section 25-N of the Act and the non-compliance thereof renders the termination invalid. The contention is meritless. Section 25-N of the Act is placed in Chapter V-B of the Act which according to Section 25-K has an application only to an industrial establishment in which not less than 100 workmen were employed in an average per working day for the preceding 12 months. There was no stall plea before the Labour Court. A bare perusal of the [claim statement shows that there were no such pleadings before- the Labour Court. Now this plea need not detain us any longer. The infirmity in retrenchment by reference to Section 25-N cannot be ventured to be found out without laying factual foundation attracting application of the provision. It is basically a question of fact. In the absence of requisite pleadings having been raised and documents having been brought on record of the Labour-Court, we are not persuaded to entertain the plea. Thus, we refrain ourselves to entertain the said plea having been raised for the first time before this Court in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Clause (b) of Section 25-F of the Act expressly, provides for payment of retrenchment compensation being made at the time of retrenchment and by implication it would be permissible to pay the same before retrenchment. In other words, a lender of compensation u/s 25-F of the Act, in order to be valid, should be of precise amount and should be made simultaneously with termination of service. This is a condition precedent to a valid order of retrenchment. In the instant case, perusal of the impugned award shows that demand draft dated 29.3.1997 on account of retrenchment compensation was sent along with retrenchment notice. Exhibit DW-l/B and the petitioner-workman admitted his signatures in token of receipt of retrenchment notice and demand draft. No suggestion had been put to the ''management witness to rebut it and further, the petitioner-workman had also not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the management taking such plea. This led the learned Labour Court to hold that retrenchment of the petitioner-workman wan in accordance with law alter complying with the formalities contained in Section 25-F of the Act. It was also found that there was no violation of Section 25 Col the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-workman has not shown anything to convince us to take tiny contrary view.

In view of what has been slated above, we find no intirnity or illegality in the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court. The writ petition being wholly without merit stands dismissed in limine.