Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the termination of services of certain workmen employed by Central Bank of India for short periods between 1974 and 1976. The workmen did not complete one year of continuous service and therefore did not fall within the category of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. They filed a writ petition in 1982 before the High Court seeking preference in re-employment under Section 25-H of the Act. The High Court granted limited relief to the workmen. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court contending that Section 25-H applied only to retrenched workmen who had continuous service of not less than one year as required by Section 25-F, and alternatively that the writ petition was barred by laches due to delay and prejudice to other workmen. The employer also referred to Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. The respondents argued that the wide definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo) could not be curtailed, that Section 25-F only prescribes conditions precedent and does not limit Section 25-H, and that no words of limitation exist in Section 25-H. The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of Chapter V-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957. It noted that the definition of retrenchment in Section 2(oo) is wide, covering termination of service for any reason except those specifically excluded, as settled by the Constitution Bench in Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh. The Court held that Section 25-H does not contain any words limiting its application to only those retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F; Section 25-F merely prescribes conditions precedent for retrenchment of workmen with continuous service of not less than one year and does not restrict the category of retrenched workmen under Section 25-H. The Court also found that Rules 77 and 78 support the wider application of Section 25-H. The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court order, ruling that all retrenched workmen, irrespective of length of continuous service, are entitled to preference in re-employment under Section 25-H.
Headnote
A) Labour Law - Retrenchment - Definition of Retrenchment under Section 2(oo) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Wide meaning includes termination of service for any reason whatsoever except excluded categories - Court relied on Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh, 1990 (3) SCC 682, which settled the wide meaning; none of the exceptions in clauses (a) to (c) applied to respondents' termination - Held that the wide definition of retrenchment applies for construction of Section 25-H without any curtailment (Paras 1-8). B) Labour Law - Re-employment of Retrenched Workmen - Section 25-H Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Scope of re-employment preference not limited to Section 25-F category - Court held that Section 25-H contains no words of limitation confining its application only to retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F; Section 25-F merely prescribes conditions precedent for retrenchment of certain workmen and does not restrict the category of retrenched workmen under Section 25-H; Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 support extension to all retrenched workmen; appeal dismissed, High Court order upheld (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the re-employment of retrenched workmen required by Section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is confined only to the category of retrenched workmen covered by Section 25-F who have been in continuous service for not less than one year.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; Section 25-H of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 applies to all retrenched workmen, not confined to those covered by Section 25-F; High Court order upheld; employer directed to give preference in re-employment to respondents.
Law Points
- Retrenchment definition under Section 2(oo) is wide and includes termination for any reason except excluded categories
- Section 25-H applies to all retrenched workmen
- not confined only to those covered by Section 25-F who have continuous service of not less than one year
- No words of limitation in Section 25-H
- Rules 77 and 78 of Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules support wider application
- Object of Chapter V-A is to provide preference to all retrenched workmen.
