Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL), challenged an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) No. II, Mumbai, which directed reinstatement of the first respondent, Deepak Sadashiv Shrikande, as a casual labourer with full backwages from the date of termination. The respondent was employed as a casual labourer from October 1985 until August 1986, when his services were terminated on 1 September 1986 without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication on 2 January 1995. The Tribunal, despite the petitioner's absence, considered whether the petitioner was an industry under Section 2(j) of the Act, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, and held that MTNL is an industry. On merits, the Tribunal found that the respondent had worked for about 320 days, thus being in continuous service under Section 25B, and that his termination without notice or compensation violated Section 25F. The High Court upheld the award, dismissing the petition, and held that the termination was illegal and the respondent was entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Condition Precedent - Termination of a casual labourer who had worked for 320 days without notice or compensation in lieu of notice and without retrenchment compensation is illegal and void. The employer must comply with Section 25F before effecting retrenchment. (Paras 1-4)
B) Industrial Law - Industry - Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) is an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j) as per the law laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, and the contrary view in Sub-Divisional Inspector, Posts v. Theyyam Joseph has been overruled. (Para 3)
C) Industrial Law - Continuous Service - Section 25B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - A workman who has worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months is deemed to be in continuous service. The respondent worked for about 320 days from October 1985 to August 1986, thus satisfying the condition. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a casual labourer without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal, and whether the employer is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the award of the CGIT directing reinstatement of the respondent as a casual labourer with full backwages from the date of termination till reinstatement.
Law Points
- Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- continuous service under Section 25B
- definition of industry under Section 2(j)
- reinstatement with backwages for illegal termination
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (07) 53
Writ Petition No.6456 of 1997
Mr.S.R. Rajguru for Petitioner, Mr.S.N. Pillai for Respondent No.1
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Deepak Sadashiv Shrikande & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of a casual labourer with backwages.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (MTNL) sought to quash the award of the CGIT which directed reinstatement of the respondent as a casual labourer with full backwages.
Filing Reason
The respondent's services were terminated on 1.9.1986 without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, leading to a reference and award in his favor.
Previous Decisions
The CGIT No. II, Mumbai, by its award in Reference No.CGIT-2/2 of 1996, allowed the reference and directed reinstatement with backwages.
Issues
Whether the termination of the respondent's services without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal.
Whether the petitioner is an industry under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal considered the issue of whether the petitioner is an industry.
The respondent contended that his termination was wrongful and sought reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages.
Ratio Decidendi
Termination of a workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year (240 days) without complying with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, i.e., without giving one month's notice or wages in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation, is illegal and void. The workman is entitled to reinstatement with full backwages.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petition challenges the award passed by the CGIT No.II, Mumbai in Reference No.CGIT-2/2 of 1996.
Respondent No.1 was employed as a casual labourer with the petitioner from October 1985.
His services were terminated on 1.9.1986 without complying with the procedure contemplated u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
The Tribunal therefore has held that the petitioner is an industry.
In view of this, the Tribunal observed that Respondent No.1 was in continuous service as contemplated u/s 25B and therefore, was entitled to a notice or wages in lieu of notice besides payment of retrenchment compensation u/s 25F prior to termination of his services.
Procedural History
The respondent was employed from October 1985 to August 1986, terminated on 1.9.1986. He raised an industrial dispute, which was referred on 2.1.1995 to the CGIT. The CGIT passed an award on an unspecified date in Reference No.CGIT-2/2 of 1996, directing reinstatement with backwages. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6456 of 1997 in the Bombay High Court challenging the award. The High Court dismissed the petition on 8.7.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 2(j), 25B, 25F
