Termination Without Compliance Of S. 25-F Amounts To Illegal Retrenchment; Enhanced Compensation Granted As Reinstatement Impossible Due To Superannuation: Orissa HC

A Division bench of the Orissa High Court comprising Justice K.R. Mohapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho held that termination without complying with the conditions under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is an illegal retrenchment. Further illegally retrenched workman eligible for enhanced compensation as reinstatement was not possible due to superannuation. Background Facts The workman was engaged by the University on a daily wage basis in 1987. His service came to an end in January 1991. The University claimed he had voluntarily abandoned his job, while the workman asserted that he was illegally retrenched without compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The workman approached the labour authorities in 2017. The dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal found the termination to be illegal and unjustified. It awarded a lump-sum compensation of ₹50,000 to the workman instead of directing reinstatement with back wages. Dissatisfied with the relief, the workman approached the High Court by filing a writ petition seeking reinstatement, while the University filed another petition challenging the Tribunal's decision of illegal termination. It was submitted by the workman that reinstatement was no longer possible as the workman had already reached the age of superannuation. Placing reliance on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Cooperative Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., the workman argued that he was entitled to substantial back wages. It was submitted that he should be granted 60 percent back wages from the date of termination until the award, and then full back wages. On the other hand it was contended by the University Management that the workmen's reference was extremely delayed and should have been rejected. It was argued that the workman had abandoned his service in 1991, and chose to raise the dispute in 2017, after 26 years. Such inordinate delay rendered the proceedings unsustainable. The Management further claimed that the workman was never employed by the University. He was engaged by a Security Officer who was on deputation from the State Government. Findings of the Court It was noted by the Court that the workman was engaged by the University and that his service ended due to retrenchment and not due to voluntary abandonment. Referring to the principle in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, it was reiterated that High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit re-appreciation of factual findings arrived at by the Tribunal. It was further held by the Court that the disengagement of workman amounted to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Further the mandatory safeguards under Section 25-F were not followed, therefore, the action of the Management was unjustified. It was further observed by the Court that reinstatement was no longer feasible and that the compensation of ₹50,000 awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate. The Court enhanced the lump-sum compensation to ₹2,00,000, considering the service rendered and wages. With the aforesaid directions, both writ petitions were disposed of by the court. Case Name : Kanhu Charan Sahoo vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar & Anr. Case No. : WP(C) Nos.14178 of 2020 and 5059 of 2020 Counsel for the Petitioner : Sourya Sundar Das, Senior Advocate Assisted by Sobhna Das, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents : Sibanarayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel, Guru Prasad Mohanty, AdvocateClick Here To Read/download The Order

Termination Without Compliance Of S. 25-F Amounts To Illegal Retrenchment; Enhanced Compensation Granted As Reinstatement Impossible Due To Superannuation: Orissa HC

Namdev Singh

Tags