Sharad Kumar Parashar vs Managing Director, M.P. Text Book Corporation and Another

Arun Mishra, J.—Heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the parties. In these two petitions same award has been assailed. M.P. Text Book Corporation Bhopal has assailed the reinstatement part whereas workman has filed writ petition against part of award denying the back wages to him. Respondent-workman Shri S.K. Parasar has rendered services for more than 240 days in the year 1991-92. His services were terminated without compliance of Section 25F of the ID Act; as such Labour Court has held the retrenchment to be illegal and void, however, as the workman has filed an application for conciliation belatedly in 1999, the back wages have been rightly denied. In my opinion, the approach adopted by the Labour Court is proper; back wages owing to the delay have been denied. The provision of Section 25F of the ID Act was not complied with, hence, the termination has been rightly held to be illegal and void; workman has rendered the services for more, than 240 days as required.

In umpteen number of decisions, it has been laid down that without following the provisions of Section 25F, termination made is illegal and void abinito. In National Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. and Others Vs. The State of West Bengal and Another, . It was held by the Apex Court that if workman is retrenched without giving one month''s notice, his wages for period of notice must be paid before he is asked to go. The Apex Court has emphasised on the payment of compensation at the time of retrenchment. The Apex Court in Workmen of Subbng Tea Estate, represented by the Workmen of Subong Tea Estate Vs. The Outgoing Management of Subong Tea Estate and Another, , has laid down that non-compliance of Section 25 of Section 25F renders the retrenchment invalid. The Apex Court in Mohan Lal Vs. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd., , has followed its earlier decision in The State of Bombay and Others Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others, and has held in Para-9 thus:

Reverting to the facts of this case, termination of service of the appellant does not fall within any of the excepted, or to be precise, excluded categories. Undoubtedly, therefore, the termination would constitute retrenchment and by a catena of decisions it is well fettled that where prerequisite for valid retrenchment as laid down in Section 25F has not been complied with, retrenchment brining about termination of service is abinitio void. The State of Bombay and Others Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others, at p. 872 : The State of Bombay and Others Vs. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Others, at p. 613, this Court held that failure to comply with, the requirement of Section 25P which prescribes a condition precedent for a valid retrenchment renders the order of retrenchment in valid and inoperative. In other words, it does not bring about a cessation of service of the workman and the workman continues to be in service. This was not even seriously controverted before us.

In Gammon India Limited Vs. Niranjan Dass, , it has been emphasized by the Apex Court that when the prerequisite for a valid retrenchment as laid down in Section 25F was not complied with, the retrenchment bringing about termination of service of employee would-be abinitio void.

In H.D. Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India and Others, law to the same effect has been laid down.

In Rattan Singh v. Union of India, (1997) 11 SCC 396 , it has been laid down by the Apex Court that Section 25F is applicable to termination of even a daily rated workman who had continuously served for the requisite statutory minimum period in a year and termination of service of such a workman without compliance of Section 25F was held to be illegal.

In Management Of MCD Vs. Prem Chand Gupta and Another, , it has been held by the Apex Court that if retrenchment compensation has not been paid, termination is null and void.

In Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , considering the similar provision the Apex Court has held that pay and allowances should be paid on the day the order of termination is served. Delay in payment of same was held to be fatal

In Smt. Kusum Gupta � Kusum Bansal v. Haryana State Small Industries & Export Corporation, Chandigarh 1986 (53) FLR 315 (SC), the Apex Court has laid down considering the similar provision that payment of salary in lieu of notice is mandatory. Employer is not entitled to withhold the payment on the ground of non-production of "no dues certificate" by the employee. Termination without such payment was held to be invalid.

Relief has been granted by the Labour Court which cannot be said to be unjustified. Back wages have been declined as workman has approached the Labour Court belatedly and he has not worked for considerable time; as such substantial justice has been done, hence, no interference is called for; workman is not entitled for back wages, no interference is called for in both the writ petitions.

Shri Ashish Pathak, learned Counsel for Corporation has prayed that liberty may be granted to the Corporation to remove the employee in accordance with law, as there is no sanctioned post, I do not comment on the "above submission as the action can always be taken in accordance with law.

In view of above discussion, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Costs on parties.