Case Note & Summary
The judgment arises from a writ petition filed by an employee challenging his termination by the respondent employer. The petitioner was appointed as a fixed-term employee on various dates from 2015 to 2018, working as a 'Sorter' in the respondent's establishment. His last appointment was on 01.10.2018 for a fixed term ending 31.12.2018. However, his services were terminated on 30.11.2018, before the expiry of the fixed term. The petitioner contended that he had worked for more than 240 days in the preceding calendar year and that his termination amounted to retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He alleged that the termination was in violation of Sections 25-F, 25-G, and 25-H of the Act as no notice or compensation was paid, and the principle of 'last come first go' was not followed. The respondent argued that the petitioner was a fixed-term employee and that his termination on expiry of the fixed term did not constitute retrenchment. The court examined the provisions of Section 25-B which defines 'continuous service' and held that the petitioner had completed 240 days of service in the preceding year, thus entitling him to the protections under Section 25-F. The court noted that the termination was not due to expiry of the fixed term but was premature, and even if it were on expiry, the protections would still apply if the employee had continuous service. The court found that the respondent failed to comply with Section 25-F by not giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof, and also violated Section 25-G by not observing seniority. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the termination, and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement, with a direction to pay the back wages within eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Fixed-Term Employee - Continuous Service - Section 25-F, 25-G, 25-B, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The petitioner, a fixed-term employee, worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and was terminated without notice or compensation. The court held that such termination amounts to retrenchment and non-compliance with Section 25-F renders it illegal. The principle of 'last come first go' under Section 25-G was also violated. (Paras 1-27) B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Back Wages - Section 25-F, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Upon finding termination illegal, the court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement, considering the length of service and absence of gainful employment evidence. (Paras 26-27)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a fixed-term employee who had completed 240 days of continuous service amounts to retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether non-compliance with Sections 25-F and 25-G renders the termination illegal.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the termination order, and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement, to be paid within eight weeks.
Law Points
- Retrenchment
- Fixed-term employee
- Continuous service
- Section 25-F
- Section 25-G
- Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Notice pay
- Reinstatement
- Back wages
- Seniority
- Last come first go
