AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Veeraswami, J.—The petition is to quash an order of the Labour Court, Madurai. The second Respondent, who was employed under the
Petitioner as a watchman, was dismissed from service on a certain charge of misconduct. The second Respondent applied to the Labour Court for
computation of retrenchment benefits, his application being u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Labour Court came to the conclusion
that the domestic enquiry resulting in the dismissal of the second Respondent was not fair and reasonable. On that view, it held that the dismissal
was not justified and that, therefore, he would be entitled to retrenchment compensation and a month''s pay in lieu of notice.
It is argued by Sri V.K. Thiruvenkatachari for the Petitioner that the Labour Court misdirected itself in assuming that any termination of service
would automatically be retrenchment. Without doubt there is force in the contention. This Court held in Murugesa Naicker Co. v. Labour Court
(1963) 1 L.L.J. 495, that termination of service in order to be retrenchment should be of surplus labour or staff in a continuing industry. It is not
pretended in this case that the termination of the second Respondent from service was of such a character. The Labour Court was therefore,
clearly in error in its view that the termination of the second Respondent''s services amounted to retrenchment.
The petition is allowed and the order of the Labour Court is quashed. No costs.