Twelve respondents instituted a civil suit before the Senior Sub-Judge against the employer's action of their termination and retrenchment from service. The reliefs they claimed in the suit consists in the: Declaration t
CS Professional · Labour Laws & Practice · PYQS · June 2023
Twelve respondents instituted a civil suit before the Senior Sub-Judge against the employer's action of their termination and retrenchment from service. The reliefs they claimed in the suit consists in the: Declaration to the effect that the orders of their termination or retrenchment from service were illegal, and Entitlement against the retrenchment with back wages. It was pleaded that the plaintiffs-respondents were skilled workers working in a hydel project in Alandpur in various capacities such as T. Mate, Mixer Operator, Beldar etc. for more than 5 years and therefore as per the standing orders and the rules, they were regular employees of the defendants. It was alleged that the defendant-appellants did not maintain any seniority list of the workers and different categories of services on the said project and they arbitrarily removed the plaintiffs-respondents from service by obtaining their signatures on papers under coercion and force and also forcing them to accept payments. It was further alleged that the defendant-appellants while removing plaintiffs-respondents did not comply with seniority criteria. As a result, juniors were retained in service and seniors were retrenched. It was alleged that the action was discriminatory and contrary to law resulting in victimization. This claim of the plaintiffs-respondents was contested by the defendant-appellants on the grounds that common suit could not have been filed since the cause of action of each defendant was distinct and separate; the plaintiffs-respondents were appointed on purely temporary basis and after the completion of the project, their services were validly terminated. On the contrary, the plaintiffs-respondents claimed injunction and reinstatement. On the diligent perusal of the above case, answer the following questions referring to legal provisions and decided case law, if any: In case retrenchment is proved to be illegal or ultra vires , explain reliefs available to the plaintiffs-respondents under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Answer & Explanation:
In the case of ' Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Bhurumal ', the Court held that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or mala fide and/or by way of victimisation, unfair labour practice, etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily-wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of a procedural defect, namely, in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view that in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. The court also added the caveat here that there may be cases where termination of a daily-wage worker is found to be illegal on the ground that it was resorted to as unfair labour practice or in violation of the principle of last come first go viz. while retrenching such a worker daily wage juniors to him were retained. There may also be a situation that persons junior to him were regularised under some policy but the workman concerned terminated. In such circumstances, the terminated worker should not be denied reinstatement unless there are some other weighty reasons for adopting the course of grant of compensation instead of reinstatement. In such cases, reinstatement should be the rule and only in exceptional cases for the reasons stated to be in writing, such a relief can be denied. Therefore, in case of illegal retrenchment, the workman is entitled to get the benefits of re-instatement with back wages. If the employer does not comply with the procedure and retrenchment is resorted to as unfair labour practice, then it's illegal and liable to pay penalty for committing unfair trade practices under Section 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Topics: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Related Questions in this Topic
- Vijaykanth and Amar Jha were in the employment as driver in a university. The university later found that operating the ...
- Vijaykanth and Amar Jha were in the employment as driver in a university. The university later found that operating the ...
- Bharath, the Managing Director of a company unilaterally announced the target in the Production Section that 9000 units ...
- Kiran, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman), was appointed in 2011 as a helper in TVS Auto Ltd. (here...
- Kiran, the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the workman), was appointed in 2011 as a helper in TVS Auto Ltd. (here...