Case Note & Summary
The Municipal Corporation, Akola, challenged the Labour Court's order in Reference IDA No. 10 of 2005, which held that the termination of the respondent employee, Shridhar Raibhan Shirsat, from service as 'Coolie' with effect from 9th May 2000 was illegal and in contravention of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The High Court noted that the employee had rendered continuous service from February 1992 to 9th May 2000, completing 240 days of continuous service preceding termination, which was not disputed. The Labour Court found non-compliance of Section 25F, making the termination illegal. The High Court observed that the order of reinstatement and continuity of service was not stayed, and the employee is presumed to be in service. The court held that the employer is always free to retrench the employee after following the provisions of law, including Section 25F and 25G. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order regarding reinstatement and continuity of service does not call for any interference. However, the order of payment of backwages was already stayed by the High Court, and no modification was made to that aspect. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Compliance of Section 25F and 25G - The Labour Court held that termination of the respondent employee as 'Coolie' with effect from 9th May 2000 was illegal and in contravention of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the employee had completed continuous service of 240 days preceding termination and no compliance was made. The High Court upheld the order of reinstatement with continuity of service, but did not interfere with the backwages order as it was stayed. (Paras 1-4) B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Continuity of Service - The High Court held that the order of reinstatement and continuity in service passed by the Labour Court does not call for interference, as the employer can still retrench the employee after following the prescribed procedure under law. (Para 4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondent employee was illegal for non-compliance of Section 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, and whether the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with continuity and full backwages is sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court upheld the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with continuity of service, but did not interfere with the order of backwages as it was already stayed. The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the employer can retrench the employee after following the prescribed procedure.
Law Points
- Non-compliance of Section 25F and 25G of Industrial Disputes Act renders termination illegal
- Reinstatement with continuity of service is proper relief
- Employer can retrench after following legal procedure
