Punjab State Tubewell Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & Anr.

Mr. Varinder Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Puneeta Sethi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Prayer in the present writ petition is for setting aside of the Award dated 05.11.1992 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Labour Court, Patiala, wherein the reference has been answered in favour of the workman holding therein that the provisions, as contained under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), have not been complied with for the reason that the amount of CWP No. 5394 of 1993 2 retrenchment compensation to which the workman was entitled to, was not mentioned in the one month's notice given to the workman for retrenchment. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the requirement of law is that one month's notice has to be given and the compensation amount, as per the provisions of Section 25-B of the Act has to be paid at the time of retrenchment. He contends that in the retrenchment notice itself, which is dated 25.05.1987 (Annexure P-1), it was specifically mentioned that one month's notice is being given to the workman-respondent No. 2 w.e.f.

25.05.1987 for retrenchment from service of the Corporation w.e.f.

24.06.1987. It was further mentioned in the said notice that the workman could collect the retrenchment compensation from the office of the Divisional Engineer, Malerkotla Tubewell Division, on any working day between 15.06.1987 to 19.06.1987 whereafter the same would be sent through registered post. As the workman refused to collect the amount of compensation from the office, as mentioned in the retrenchment notice, the payment of retrenchment compensation was sent through Account Payee Cheque No. PXE 654071 dated 18.06.1987 amounting to Rs. 468.50 drawn at Punjab National Bank, Malerkotla. The draft was sent along with a cover letter, copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure P-2 and the copy of the Account Payee Cheque is appended as Annexure P-3. The said registered letter was returned with the note that the workman- respondent No. 2 is not available at home. He further contends that the requirement of law as contained under Section 25-F of the Act has been duly complied with. The findings, as recorded by the Labour Court and the observations made therein, cannot be sustained. He further contends that in the statement before the Labour Court, MW-1 Rameshwar Vashist, CWP No. 5394 of 1993 3 SDO, has stated that the said amount of compensation was duly sent to the workman but the workman refused to accept the same. He has also proved the documents before the Labour Court. On this basis, he prays that the impugned Award cannot be sustained and, therefore, deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the requirement of law is that the compensation amount should be paid to the workman at the time of retrenchment, which admittedly was not done. An offer although was made but the actual payment was not made and even the cheque, which was sent to the workman, was not received by the workman, therefore, there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act and the Award passed by the Labour Court is fully justified. She further contends that no amount was mentioned as retrenchment compensation in the notice for retrenchment which itself vitiated the notice for retrenchment. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. The factual aspect, as has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioner, is not in dispute. The question thus to be considered and decided is as to whether the offer, which has been made to the workman by the Management-petitioner while issuing notice for retrenchment and the non-collection of the said amount by the workman from the office of the Management, would amount to due compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act or not? The requirement of the provisions for retrenchment, as has been provided under Section 25-F of the Act, is that the workman has to be given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or the workman has to be paid in lieu of such notice, wages CWP No. 5394 of 1993 4 for the period of the notice. Apart from this, the workman has to be paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation, which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months'. The petitioner-Management had admittedly given one month's notice to the workman-respondent No. 2. What has been asserted on behalf of respondent No. 2, is that the notice does not mention the amount to which the workman would be entitled to as retrenchment compensation. This is not the requirement of law. A clear offer has been made in the retrenchment notice dated 25.05.1987 (Annexure P-1) that the workman should collect the retrenchment compensation from the office of the Divisional Engineer, Malerkotla Tubewell Division, on any working day between 15.06.1987 to 19.06.1987. Admittedly, the workman has not collected the retrenchment compensation from the office of the petitioner- Management. As per the retrenchment notice, the Management has, on non-collection of the amount of retrenchment compensation by the workman, sent the compensation amount by way of Account Payee Cheque amounting to Rs. 468.50 through the registered post at the residential address, which was given by the workman himself with the Management. The said registered letter was received back with the report that he was not available at his home. Annexure P-4, which is the communication dated 29.09.1987 further indicates that the workman had been visiting the office of the Management on many occasions but refused to accept the cheque of retrenchment compensation. All this shows that the Management had made all efforts to make the payment of retrenchment compensation which the workman refused to accept. The quantum of retrenchment compensation is not in dispute. That being CWP No. 5394 of 1993 5 so, the mandate, as provided under the provisions of the Act, having been complied with, the retrenchment of the workman was in consonance with law and, therefore, the findings, as recorded by the Labour Court and the observations with regard to the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act, cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the Award passed by the Labour Court dated

05.11.1992 (Annexure P-6) cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the reference is answered against the workman holding the termination of the service of the workman to be in accordance with law as he was retrenched in accordance with the Industrial Disputes Act. At this stage, counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that after the termination of the service of the workman-respondent No. 2, various new persons have been engaged by the petitioner-Management, even the services of those persons, who have been engaged on daily wage basis after the termination of the services of the workman, have been regularized. She states that the provisions, as contained under Section 25- H of the Act, have not been complied with. She further states that the workman would move a representation before the Management stating therein the persons, who have now been appointed after the termination of the workman-respondent No. 2 and the said representation may be considered and decided by the petitioner within a reasonable time. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move a detailed representation with regard to this submission, as made by the counsel for respondent No. 2-workman. If such a representation is made within a period of four weeks' from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the petitioner-Management within a period of further eight weeks and order conveyed to the petitioner. CWP No. 5394 of 1993 6 Counsel for respondent No. 2-workman states that compliance of Section 17-B of the Act has been done by the petitioner-Management till December, 2009, thereafter, the last wages drawn have not been paid to the workman-respondent No. 2. Counsel for the petitioner-Management states that in case the said contention is correct, the needful shall be done within a period of 15 days' from today. March 17, 2010 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE