State of Chhattisgarh vs Bharat Lal and Other

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 8.4.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Labour Court under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (for short ''the Act, 1947'') whereby, the Labour Court has recorded that the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, 1947 has not been complied with and as such retrenchment of the respondent, employee was not legal. Accordingly, retrenchment was declared as illegal and reinstatement with 75% backwages was granted. Shri Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ State submits that for invoking provisions of Section 25-F, the Labour Court ought to have considered the facts as to whether the respondent No. 1 had worked for more than 240 days or not in the preceding year or compliance of Section 25B of the Act, 1947 is precondition for invoking compliance of Section 25-F.

Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent employee submits that the Court below has recorded various statements, which amounts that the respondent employee had worked for more than 240 days.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, it is found that the Labour Court has recorded statements of one Shri B.R. Khute and other witnesses. B.R. Khute, in his statement has deposed that the petitioner had not worked more than 240 days and in case of muster roll, it was as recorded that only the Ranger posted at that point of time, was in position to state the facts, as he had worked for 240 days. After recording the statement, no finding has been recorded by the Labour Court.

The issue with regard to compliance of Section 25-F is no longer res Integra. This Court in the matter of the State of M.P. v. Bhairav Prasad Mishra in W.P. No. 3500 of 1996 decided on 23rd April, 2008 after relying various decisions, as rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court (See: Surendra Kumar Verma v. The Central Government, industrial Trilisnal cum Labour Court. New Delhi; State of M.P. & Others v. Arjun Lal Rajak; Municipal Council, Sujanpur v. Surinder Kumar: Surendra Nagar, Distt. Panchayat & Another v. Ganga Ban Laljibhai & Others) observed that Section V 25B of the Act, 1947 defines continuous service that, where a workman who is not in continues service for a period of one year or six months, he shall be deemed to be in continues service under an employer for a period of one year, if the workman during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days. For a period of six months, if the workman during the six calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made has actually worked under the employer for not less than 120 days and as such it is clear from the above that compliance with the provisions of Section 25B of the Act, 1947, is a precondition for invoking relief u/s 25-F of the Act, 1947.

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case, the Court below without recording the finding that the employee was in continuous service for 240 days in the preceding year, has considered non-compliance of the provisions of 25-F of the Act, 1947 which is not sustainable in law.

Accordingly, the order impugned deserves to be quashed being unjust, illegal and irregular.

The petition Is accordingly allowed. However, matter Is remitted back to the Labour Court for considering afresh and recording proper finding before coming to the conclusion, as to whether retrenchment was illegal or not. No order as to costs.