The provisions of sections 25G and 25-H are applicable to workmen, whether or not they have completed 240 days of service

on
2016 LLR 98SHORT NOTE
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Sujoy Paul, J.
W.P. Nos. 5132, 1734, 1900, 1899, 1777 and 1741/2012, 
D/–15-7-2015
Narayan Das
vs.
State of M.P. and Others
 


A. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 – Sections 25N, 25F, 25G and 25H – Termination – Interfered with by Labour Court by award – On ground of not following the requirement of section 25F of Act – However, action of department is in accordance with provisions of Act – If they are following the requirement of section 25F – It cannot be said that it amounts to unfair labour practice – And the respondents are required to ensure that no retrenchment takes place on violation of section 25G read with Rule 76 of Rules – In the circumstances, petitioner is directed to submit a representation along with seniority list, which will be decided before implementing the impugned order terminating the service.

B. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 25F(a) and (b) and 25F(C) – Notice – One month's notice as per section 25F(a) – Fulfils the requirement of section 25F(a) and (b) – If on expiry of period petitioners' services are terminated – Without paying retrenchment compensation – Interference can be made – Clause (c) of section 25F is directory – Violation of sub-clause (c) Will not render the impugned notice as illegal.

C. INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 – Section 25N and 25L – Scope of –Section 25N is applicable to workman employed in any “industrial establishment” to which Chapter VB applies

For Petitioners : Mr. K.N. Gupta and Mr. M.S. Rana, Advocates.
For Respondents/State: Mrs. Sangeeta Pachori, G.A.
IMPORTANT POINTS
  • If the action of the department is in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 including section 25F of the Act, it cannot be said that it amounts to unfair labour practice.
  • The provisions of sections 25G and 25-H are applicable to workmen, whether or not they have completed 240 days of service.
  • If services of workmen are terminated without paying 
    retrenchment compensation, it would be illegal.
  • Notice by employer directing retrenched employees to collect retrenchment compensation from Divisional Office but employees fail to do so, it would establish that employer has made sufficient compliance of Clause (b) of section 25F of the Act.
  • Violation of sub-clause (c) of section 25F of the Act will not render the impugned notice as illegal.
2015 (147) FLR 290

Comments

Post a Comment