S. Achalu v. Left Canal

The present Writ Petition is filed challenging the proceedings of the Executive Engineer - Second Respondent dated 27-5-2003 in dispensing with the services of the Writ Petitioner with effect from 1-6-2003 by giving a notice period wages in lieu of one month time. The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned proceedings are completely in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and therefore, it is liable to be set-aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the impugned proceedings are completely in accordance with the provision of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned proceedings. As seen from the impugned proceedings, it is clear that it is not in accordance with Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947 which reads as follows: Section-25F.Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen: No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer Until--- a. the workman has been given one month’s notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workmen has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. 1( x x x) b. the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days’ average pay 2(for every completed year of continuous service) or any part thereof in excess of six months ; and c. notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government 3( or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette). Without following the procedure under Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the services of the petitioner as Pump Operator are dispensed with effect from 1-6-