Case Note & Summary
The Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) challenged an award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 28 February 2002, which held that the termination of services of two daily wage workers (Ravindra Vyankat Ladhe and another) was illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The workers were engaged on a temporary ad hoc basis between December 1992 and August 1994. In December 1992, a regular selection process was conducted, and the workers participated but were not selected. After February 1994, their engagement declined to less than 5-6 days per month as regularly selected candidates were appointed. Their services were discontinued in August 1994. Two references were made on 27 May 1997 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal found that the workers had worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year, that the termination constituted retrenchment under Section 2(oo), and that since no retrenchment compensation under Section 25F was paid, the termination was invalid. LIC argued that the workers were purely temporary and that a Supreme Court-approved regularization scheme covered workers engaged from 1985 until 23 October 1992, not those engaged later. The High Court held that the workers, having participated in the selection process and failed, could not claim regularization. The termination was not retrenchment but the natural end of temporary engagement. The Court set aside the award and dismissed the workers' claim for reinstatement and back wages.
Headnote
A) Industrial Disputes Act - Retrenchment - Section 2(oo) and Section 25F - Temporary Daily Wage Workers - Termination of services of daily wage workers who worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year without payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25F is invalid - However, where workers participated in a regular selection process and were not selected, their termination is not retrenchment but non-renewal of temporary engagement - Held that the Tribunal erred in ordering reinstatement with full back wages as the workers were not entitled to regularization (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of temporary daily wage workers who had worked for more than 240 days constitutes illegal retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and whether they are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal dated 28 February 2002, and dismissed the claim of the workmen for reinstatement and back wages.
Law Points
- Retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- Section 25F compliance
- Temporary employment
- Daily wage workers
- Regularization
- Selection process
- Reinstatement with back wages
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (04) 227
WRIT PETITION NO.1655 OF 2002
Ms.S. M. Paranjape i/b. Little & Co. for the Petitioner, Mr. Ramesh Ramamurty for the Respondents
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Ravindra Vyankat Ladhe & 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 with full back wages for two daily wage workers.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (LIC) sought to quash the Tribunal's award and uphold the termination of services.
Filing Reason
The Tribunal held that termination of temporary daily wage workers without payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25F was illegal and ordered reinstatement with full back wages.
Previous Decisions
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal passed an award on 28 February 2002 ordering reinstatement with full back wages.
Issues
Whether the termination of temporary daily wage workers who worked for more than 240 days constitutes retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Whether the workers are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages despite having participated in a regular selection process and not being selected.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner (LIC): The workers were appointed purely on a temporary basis; a Supreme Court-approved regularization scheme covered workers engaged from 1985 until 23 October 1992, not those engaged later; the workers participated in the selection process and were not selected.
Respondents (Workmen): The workers had worked for more than 240 days; termination without Section 25F compliance is illegal; they are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.
Ratio Decidendi
Temporary daily wage workers who participate in a regular selection process and are not selected cannot claim regularization or reinstatement with back wages. Their termination is not retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as it is the natural end of a temporary engagement.
Judgment Excerpts
The Tribunal has held that the action of the Life Insurance Corporation in terminating the services of the First and Second Respondents who were appointed on a temporary basis between December 1992 and August 1994 is contrary to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that consequently, the two workmen are entitled to reinstatement with full back wages.
In December 1992, a regular process of selection was conducted and it is common ground, that the two workmen participated in the selection process, but were not selected.
Procedural History
Two references were made on 27 May 1997 under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Statements of claim were filed. Evidence was adduced. The Tribunal passed an award on 28 February 2002 ordering reinstatement with full back wages. LIC filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the award.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 10, Section 2(oo), Section 25F
