Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sanjay Jagannath Pardeshi, was employed as a Peon on daily wages with the Municipal Council, Pachora, from 1991. He was appointed on a vacant post by resolution dated 20/11/1999. However, by order dated 14/06/2001, the District Collector stayed the resolution and terminated the petitioner w.e.f. 20/06/2001. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.101/2001 before the Labour Court at Jalgaon, which was allowed on 22/06/2012, directing reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages. Both parties filed revisions before the Industrial Court: the petitioner sought full back wages, while the employer challenged the reinstatement. The Industrial Court, by judgment dated 20/03/2015, dismissed the petitioner's revision and allowed the employer's revision, setting aside the Labour Court's order and permitting the employer to cure the illegal retrenchment by making payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition. The High Court, after hearing counsel, found that the Industrial Court had not committed any error in its approach. The court noted that the petitioner had worked for about 10 years and that the retrenchment was not void ab initio; the employer could be allowed to cure the defect by paying compensation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Retrenchment Compensation - Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Curing Illegal Retrenchment - The Industrial Court allowed the employer to cure illegal retrenchment by paying retrenchment compensation after termination, setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with back wages. The High Court upheld this, holding that retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F is not void ab initio and can be regularized by subsequent payment of compensation. (Paras 1-4)
B) Industrial Law - Reinstatement - Section 30 of Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Labour Court's Power - The Labour Court had ordered reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages. The Industrial Court in revision modified this by allowing the employer to pay compensation under Section 25F. The High Court found no error in the Industrial Court's approach, as the employee had worked for about 10 years and the employer was given an opportunity to cure the defect. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement and instead permitting the employer to cure the illegal retrenchment by making payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order dated 20/03/2015 which allowed the employer to cure the illegal retrenchment by making payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Law Points
- Retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act
- 1947
- can be paid after termination to cure illegality
- Reinstatement not automatic if retrenchment is not void ab initio
- Industrial Court has power to modify Labour Court orders in revision
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (02) 12
Writ Petition No.6865 of 2015
Mr.S.P.Tiwari for petitioner, Mr.D.B.Thoke for respondent No.1, Mr.V.S.Badakh AGP for respondent No.2
Sanjay S/o Jagannath Pardeshi
The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Pachora and The Collector, Jalgaon
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Court which set aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement and allowed the employer to cure illegal retrenchment by paying retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Industrial Court's order and restore the Labour Court's order of reinstatement with continuity and back wages.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was terminated from service without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the Labour Court had ordered reinstatement, but the Industrial Court modified it to allow payment of compensation.
Previous Decisions
Labour Court allowed Complaint (ULP) No.101/2001 on 22/06/2012 ordering reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages. Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.66/2012 and 76/2012 on 20/03/2015 dismissed petitioner's revision and allowed employer's revision, setting aside Labour Court's order and permitting employer to cure illegal retrenchment by paying compensation under Section 25F.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the Labour Court's order of reinstatement and instead permitting the employer to cure the illegal retrenchment by making payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he was continued in employment for almost 10 years and was terminated illegally without compliance with Section 25F, and the Labour Court rightly ordered reinstatement.
Respondent No.1 argued that the retrenchment could be cured by payment of compensation under Section 25F, and the Industrial Court correctly allowed such cure.
Ratio Decidendi
Retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not void ab initio and can be regularized by subsequent payment of retrenchment compensation. The Industrial Court has the power to modify the Labour Court's order in revision and allow the employer to cure the defect.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner employee is aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20/03/2015 delivered by the Industrial Court in Revision (ULP) No.66/2012 and 76/2012.
By the impugned judgment and order dated 20/03/2015, the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the revision petition filed by respondent no.1 was allowed thereby setting aside the judgment of the Labour Court and permitting Respondent No.1 to cure illegal retrenchment by making payment of retrenchment compensation under Section 25F.
Procedural History
The petitioner joined as Peon on daily wages in 1991. He was appointed on a vacant post by resolution dated 20/11/1999. By order dated 14/06/2001, the District Collector stayed the resolution and terminated the petitioner w.e.f. 20/06/2001. The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.101/2001 before the Labour Court at Jalgaon, which was allowed on 22/06/2012 ordering reinstatement with continuity and 50% back wages. Both parties filed revisions: petitioner filed Revision (ULP) No.66/2012 and respondent No.1 filed Revision (ULP) No.76/2012 before the Industrial Court at Jalgaon. The Industrial Court by judgment dated 20/03/2015 dismissed the petitioner's revision and allowed respondent's revision, setting aside the Labour Court's order and permitting respondent to cure illegal retrenchment by paying compensation under Section 25F. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 25F
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971: Section 30
