Case: Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer Public Health Division No-1 , Panipat

paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice. The notice in this case bears the date November 15, 1958. It is to the effect that the addressees services were terminated with effect from 17th November and that he would get one months wages in lieu of notice of termination of his service. The workman was further asked to collect his dues from the cash office on November 20, 1958 or thereafter during the working hours. Manifestly, Section 25-F, had not been complied with under which it was incumbent on the employer to pay the workman, the wages for the period of the notice in lieu of the notice. That is to say, if he was asked to go forthwith he had to be paid at the time when he was asked to go and could not be asked to collect his dues afterwards. As there was no compliance with Section 25-F, we need not consider the other points raised by the learned counsel." 15. In State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money (supra), the Court emphasised that the workman cannot be retrenched without payment, at the time of retrenchment, compensation computed in terms of Section 25-F(b). 16. The legal position has been beautifully summed up in Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar (supra) in the following words: "The underlying object of Section 25-F is twofold. Firstly, a retrenched employee must have one months time available at his disposal to search for alternate employment, and so, either he should be given one months notice of the proposed termination or he should be paid wages for the notice period. Secondly, the workman must be paid retrenchment compensation at the time of retrenchment, or before, so that once having been retrenched there should be no need for him to go to his employer demanding retrenchment compensation and the compensation so paid is not only a reward earned for his previous services rendered to the employer but is also a sustenance to the worker for the period which may be spent in searching for another employment. Section 25-F nowhere speaks of the retrenchment compensation being paid or tendered to the worker along with one months notice; on the contrary, clause (b) expressly provides for the payment of compensation being made at the time of retrenchment and by implication it would be permissible to pay the same before retrenchment. Payment or tender of compensation after the time when the retrenchment has taken effect would vitiate the retrenchment and non-compliance with the mandatory provision which has a beneficial purpose and a public policy behind it would result in nullifying the retrenchment." 17. If the workman is retrenched by an oral order or communication or he is simply asked not to come for duty, the employer will be required to lead tangible and substantive evidence to prove compliance of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25-F of the Act. 18. The stage is now set for considering whether the respondent had offered compensation to the appellant before discontinuing his engagement/employment, which amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. In his statement, the appellant categorically stated that before discontinuing his service, the respondent did not give him notice pay and retrenchment compensation. Shri Ram Chander, who appeared as the sole witness on behalf of the respondent stated that the compensation amounting to Rs.5,491/- was offered to the appellant along with letter Ext. M-1, but he refused to accept the same. The respondent did not examine any other witness to corroborate the testimony of Ram Chander and no contemporaneous document was produced to prove that the compensation was offered to the appellant on 25.4.1998. Not only this, the respondent did not explain as to why the demand draft was sent to the appellant after more than three months of his alleged refusal to accept the compensation on 25.4.1998. If there was any grain of truth in the respondents assertion that the compensation was offered to the appellant on 25.4.1998 and he refused to accept the same, there could be no justification for not sending the demand draft by post immediately after the appellants refusal to accept the offer of compensation. The minimum which the respondent ought to have done was to produce the letter with which draft was sent at the appellants residence. The contents of that letter would have shown whether the offer of compensation was made to the appellant on 25.4.1998 and he refused to accept the same. However, the fact of the matter is that no such document was produced. Therefore, we are convinced that the finding recorded by the Labour Court on the issue of non-compliance of Section 25-F of the Act was based on correct appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of the parties and the High Court committed serious error by setting aside the award of reinstatement. 19. The judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra) and other decisions in which this Court considered the right of casual, daily wage, temporary and ad hoc employees to be regularised/continued in service or paid salary in the regular time scale, appears to have unduly influenced the High Courts approach in dealing with the appellants challenge to the award of the Labour Court. In our view, none of those judgments has any bearing on the interpretation of Section 25-F of the Act and employers obligation to comply with the conditions enumerated in that section. 20. At the cost of repetition, we consider it necessary to mention that it was not the pleaded case of the respondent before the Labour Court and even before the High Court that the appellant was engaged/employed without following the statutory rules or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that was the basis for discontinuing his engagement. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in relying upon the alleged illegality of the engagement/employment of the appellant for upsetting the award of reinstatement.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]18. The stage is now set for considering whether the respondent had offered compensation to the appellant before discontinuing his engagement/employment, which amounts to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Act. In his statement, the appellant categorically stated that before discontinuing his service, the respondent did not give him notice pay and retrenchment compensation. Shri Ram Chander, who appeared as the sole witness on behalf of the respondent stated that the compensation amounting to Rs.5,491/was offered to the appellant along with letter Ext., but he refused to accept the same. The respondent did not examine any other witness to corroborate the testimony of Ram Chander and no contemporaneous document was produced to prove that the compensation was offered to the appellant on 25.4.1998. Not only this, the respondent did not explain as to why the demand draft was sent to the appellant after more than three months of his alleged refusal to accept the compensation on 25.4.1998. If there was any grain of truth in the respondents assertion that the compensation was offered to the appellant on 25.4.1998 and he refused to accept the same, there could be no justification for not sending the demand draft by post immediately after the appellants refusal to accept the offer of compensation. The minimum which the respondent ought to have done was to produce the letter with which draft was sent at the appellants residence. The contents of that letter would have shown whether the offer of compensation was made to the appellant on 25.4.1998 and he refused to accept the same. However, the fact of the matter is that no such document was produced. Therefore, we are convinced that the finding recorded by the Labour Court on the issue ofe of Section25Fof the Act was based on correct appreciation of the pleadings and evidence of the parties and the High Court committed serious error by setting aside the award of reinstatement19. The judgment of the Constitution Bench in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra) and other decisions in which this Court considered the right of casual, daily wage, temporary and ad hoc employees to be regularised/continued in service or paid salary in the regular time scale, appears to have unduly influenced the High Courts approach in dealing with the appellants challenge to the award of the Labour Court. In our view, none of those judgments has any bearing on the interpretation of Section25Fof the Act and employers obligation to comply with the conditions enumerated in that section20. At the cost of repetition, we consider it necessary to mention that it was not the pleaded case of the respondent before the Labour Court and even before the High Court that the appellant was engaged/employed without following the statutory rules or Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and that was the basis for discontinuing his engagement. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in relying upon the alleged illegality of the engagement/employment of the appellant for upsetting the award of reinstatement.