Rural Entitlements and Legal Support Centre and Another vs The State of Bihar and Others

B.P. Jha, J.—In a writ petition, these petitioners as representatives of the workmen of Durgawati Jalasay Pariyojna, Karmohat, have prayed for quashing a retrenchment order as contained in Annexure-1. The point for decision in the present case is:

Whether the workmen had been paid wages at the time when they were retrenched?

The point raised is covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another, . It is contended on behalf of the State that the workmen have been retrenched by an order as contained in Annexure-G (attached to the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State). Learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the workmen have been retrenched vide Annexure-1.

Both Annexures-G and 1 are dated 30th January, 1984. In Annexure-G it is stated that their services have been retrenched on the ground that their appointment has been found to be irregular. It was for this reason the workmen were directed to collect their wages and compensation as required u/s 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') between 1st and 7th February, 1984. The retrenchment order will be given effect from the afternoon of 31st January, 1984. It was therefore, clear that the workmen were directed to collect their wages and compensation after they were retrenched from service.

By Annexure-1, the services of the workmen were terminated from the afternoon 22nd February, 1984 and they were directed to collect their wages and compensation between 23rd and 25th February, 1984.

On a perusal of Annexures-1 and C, it is clear that the workmen were directed to collect their wages and compensation after their retrenchment. In any opinion, such payment of wages is contrary to the provisions of section 25F of the Act.

It was contended on behalf of the respondents on the basis of paragraph No. 2 of Annexure-G that the payment of wages and compensation was to be made at the time of retrenchment. In other words, the respondents contended that the provisions of section 25F had been complied with. It is clear from the supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of the State that payments could not be made on 31st January, 1984 because of the absence of the workmen and, as such, individual notices were sent by registered post. It is mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of the supplementary counter-affidavit as follows:

Since the payment u/s 25F was set apart because of the absence of the concerned workmen, they were informed to collect if from 1.2.1984 to 7.2.1984.

On the basis of the averment made in the supplementary counter-affidavit on behalf of the State, it is manifest that wages and compensation were not paid on 31st January, 1984, that is, the date when the retrenchment order took effect. Hence, I held that the provisions of section 25F of the Act were not complied with.

It is also clear from Annexure-1 that the workmen were directed to collect their wages and compensation between 23rd and 25th February, 1984. It is, therefore, apparent that the workmen were directed to collect their wages and compensation after the retrenchment order was given effect to. According to section 25F of the Act, the wages and compensation were required to be paid to the workmen at the time of the retrenchment order or before that, it is clear from Annexure-1 that the payment of wages and compensation as required u/s 25 of the Act was made after the retrenchment order (as contained in Annexure-1) Was given effect to.

In this circumstance, I hold that Annexure-1 and G are illegal as they are contrary to section 25F of the Act. In other words, Annexures-1 and G do not comply with the provisions of section 25F on the Act.

Section 25F of the Act provides that a workman should not be retrenched until he has been given one month''s notice in writing indicating the reasons for his retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice wages for the period of notice. Section 25F(b) provides for payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment. In other words, the wages and compensation are required to be paid at the time of retrenchment. In the present case, the workmen were directed vide Annexure-1 and Annexure-G to collect their wages and compensation after the retrenchment order. If the workmen were asked to go forthwith, they had to be paid wages and compensation at the time of retrenchment and they could not be directed to collect wages and compensation after wards. Hence, I hold that the provisions of section 25F have not been complied with.

In the circumstances, the petition is allowed and I quash Annexures-1 and G and I issue a writ of certiorari accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.

S. Sarwar Ali, J.

I agree. Learned counsel for the State relied on a bench decision of this Court-C.W.J.C. No. 4202 of 1983 (Ganesh Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar & others) where it was held, on interpretation of the Full Bench of this Court (1983 P.L.J.R. 687) that section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act has no application where the appointments in question are illegally made, or by an authority who has no power to make the appointment. In my opinion, it is not necessary to consider the applicability of this decision on the facts and circumstances of this case, because the definite case of the respondents in the counter-affidavit is that it was decided to terminate the services after complying with the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.