Industrial Disputes Act Inapplicability Of Sections 25F And 25N If Workman Fails To Work Continuously For One Year: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Petition
TheMadhya Pradesh High Courtsingle bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal recently dismissed a writ petition and held that since the Workman didn't work continuously for one year under an employer, provisions of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 such as Section 25F and Section 25N had no application to the facts and circumstances of the case. Brief Facts: The Petitioner (“Workman”), a...
TheMadhya Pradesh High Courtsingle bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal recently dismissed a writ petition and held that since the Workman didn't work continuously for one year under an employer, provisions of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 such as Section 25F and Section 25N had no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner (“Workman”), a casual labourer, was dismissed from the service. The Industrial Tribunal dismissed the Workman's claim for reinstatement. He argued that there was an alleged noncompliance with the provisions outlined in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Management. The Tribunal held that the Workman was a casual labourer, engaged from May 1986 to July 1990, without accruing 240 days of work within a calendar year. Therefore, it held that a provision such as Section 25F wouldn't be applicable. Feeling aggrieved, the Workman approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) and filed a writ petition to challenge the decision of the tribunal.
Observations by the High Court:
The High Court held that Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 unequivocally stipulates that no workman employed in any industry, having served continuously for not less than one year under an employer, shall be retrenched without due process. This entails providing one month's written notice specifying the reasons for retrenchment, or remuneration in lieu of such notice.
Similarly, the High Court noted that Section 25N of the ID Act addresses the prerequisites for the retrenchment of a workman, emphasizing that no workman, employed in an industrial establishment to which the Chapter applies, and having served continuously for not less than one year under an employer, shall be retrenched until certain conditions laid out in Clauses (a) and (b) are met.
Considering these statutory provisions and the undeniable fact that the Workman has not maintained uninterrupted employment for one year under an employer, the High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal. It held that it was not erroneous for the Tribunal to determine that the provisions delineated in Sections 25F and 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act were inapplicable to the circumstances of the case. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Maushad Ali vs Telecom District Manager Sagar Sagar
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 13405 of 2014
Advocate for the Petitioner: Shri Ashish Mishra
Advocate for the Respondent: Shri Chandra Mohan Parnami