Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. On 11.12.2000, the workmen filed complaint (ULP) No. 838 of 2000 under Items 1(b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act. It was contended in the complaints that the management employed 20 persons but in order to deprive the employees of their legitimate dues in respect of the Provident Fund, ESI and Gratuity, etc. these 20 employees were shown working in different establishments run by the management. Registers were not maintained properly and were in breach of the labour laws. It was also pleaded that no appointment letters were issued to the workmen when they started work with the management. They were being paid wages @ Rs. 89/-per day. The workmen also pleaded that there was sufficient work available with the management and that their juniors had been retained in service. Besides this, it was pleaded that the retrenchment compensation which was paid to them was far less than the amounts to which they were actually entitled. It was also pleaded that wages in lieu of notice were not paid to the workmen. Thus, it was the grievance of the workmen that their services have been terminated in breach of the provisions of Section 25F and 25G of the ID Act thereby committing unfair labour practices under Items 1(b), (d) and (f) of the Schedule IV.

BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 25F OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE MANAGEMENT:

----------------------------------------------------
The learned Counsel for the management submits that the impugned orders are erroneous for the following reasons:
(i) The workmen were not in continuous service as defined under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act entitling them to retrenchment compensation under Section 25F of the ID Act.
(ii) Neither workmen had completed 240 days in the 12 months preceding the date on which they were retrenched. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. Management of Bharat Electronics Ltd. in support of this proposition.
(i) Non-payment of retrenchment compensation as stipulated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act renders the action of the management bad in law and void ab initio.
(ii) The scope of the definition of continuous service has been considered in the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Ramasamuz Narsing Updhyaya v. Vinubhai M. Mitra 1982 II LLJ HC BOM 186 where it has been held that the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 of Section 25B apply to two different contingencies. It is not necessary for the workmen to prove that in each year they had completed 240 days of service since they were covered by Clause 1 of Section 25B. The provisions of Clause 2 of Section 25B need not be considered once the workmen are governed by Clause 1 of of Section 25B.

22. Thus, the management has committed an unfair labour practice by terminating the services of the workmen in breach of Section 25F and Section 25G as rightly held by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court.

23. Mr.Mandevia had also submitted that the workmen were not paid wages in lieu of notice prior to terminating their services. He submits that the notice was issued to the workmen on 16.8.2000 terminating their services on account of retrenchment with effect from 21.9.2000. According to the learned Advocate, that notice was not valid as under Section 25F, a notice of one month is what is required to be given to the workmen. He submits that if the workmen are permitted to work beyond the notice period of one month then the employer must either issue a fresh notice of exactly one month or wages in lieu thereof. He submits that not only were the workmen continued in service beyond one month of the date of the notice, they were also permitted to continue in service even beyond 21.9.2000.