Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Mr. Lajpat Sharma, counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner towards retrenchment compensation was entitled to `3328/- whereas he was paid `1820/-. He was paid total sum of `13468/- under different headings. Under heading compensation, he was actually entitled to `3328/- whereas he was paid `1820/-. As there was short payment of compensation, there was non-compliance of mandate of Section 25F and 25FF of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short '1947 Act'). The Labour Court has committed error while answering reference against the workman.

5. I have heard the arguments of both sides and with the able assistance of learned counsels have perused the record.

6. Mr. Lajpat Sharma, counsel for the petitioner is right while 2 of 5 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099027 arguing that Section 25F and 25FF are mandatory provisions. The Management is bound to comply with mandate of aforesaid provisions. No workman can be retrenched without compliance of aforesaid provisions. He has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court in 'Jitesh Kumar Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and others', 2015 (1) SCT 742 and 'Angrejo Devi Vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat and another', 2015 (2) SCT 213. In both the judgments courts have held that provisions of Section 25 F and Section 25FF of 1947 Act are mandatory in nature.