Case Note & Summary
The case involves a challenge by the petitioners (the Principal of Industrial Training Institute, Khamgaon, and the Joint Director of Vocational Education and Training) against an award dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Labour Court at Buldhana in Reference No. 69 of 2004. The Labour Court had answered the reference in favor of the respondent-employee, Anant Nivrutti Bhure, directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. The respondent was initially appointed as an Assistant Store Keeper on 23.11.1995 with effect from 01.12.1995 on a temporary basis for five months, with a condition that his appointment could be terminated without notice. Similar orders were issued subsequently, the last being on 09.10.1996. His services were terminated by an order dated 17.12.1996 based on an enquiry report submitted by an Enquiry Committee and accepted by the Principal. The termination was referred to the Labour Court under Section 10(1)(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court found that the termination was effected without holding a proper domestic enquiry and in violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the I.D. Act. The employer did not give any notice or compensation as required under Section 25F, and the principle of 'last come first go' under Section 25G was not followed. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the Labour Court's findings were based on evidence and did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, and the award of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Termination - Illegal Termination - Sections 25F, 25G, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The Labour Court found that the termination of the respondent-employee was effected without holding a domestic enquiry and in violation of Sections 25F and 25G of the I.D. Act. The employee was not given any notice or compensation, and the principle of 'last come first go' was not followed. The Court upheld the award of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages. (Paras 1-5) B) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Compliance with Section 25F - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25F - The employer failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 25F by not giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof and not paying retrenchment compensation at the time of termination. The termination was therefore illegal. (Paras 3-5) C) Industrial Law - Retrenchment - Principle of Last Come First Go - Section 25G, Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The employer did not follow the principle of 'last come first go' as required under Section 25G, as the respondent-employee was the last to be appointed but was terminated while others with less seniority were retained. This violation further vitiated the termination. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the respondent-employee was legal and valid, and whether the Labour Court was justified in ordering reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the award of the Labour Court dated 30.10.2010, directing reinstatement of the respondent-employee with continuity of service and full backwages.
Law Points
- Termination without holding a domestic enquiry is illegal
- Violation of Sections 25F and 25G of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947 renders termination void
- Reinstatement with full backwages is proper remedy for illegal termination
- Principle of last come first go must be followed in retrenchment
