Case: Pramod Jha  Vs. State Of Bihar

4. On 30.6.1995 Office of the Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division, District Munger, served notices on 55 employees engaged on daily wage basis informing them that they were appointed for the timely implementation of the projects of the State Government on daily wage basis as per necessity. On account of the cut in running the project and resource crunch in the finance etc. there was a reduction in the work-load and there was no necessity of continuing the work on daily wage basis. Therefore, the daily wagers were informed - "your services are terminated with effect from 1.8.1995 and the provisions of Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act would be complied with; that this letter be treated as notice in accordance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act. On 1.7.1995 another notice was issued to the daily wage employees supplemental to the earlier notice, giving each on them opportunity to show cause against the proposed termination of their employment, consistently with Section 25F of the ID Act, on or before 17.7.1995. The appellants laid challenge to the validity of the notice by post haste filing civil writ petitions in the High Court. By order dated 28.7.1995 the High Court directed status quo to be maintained meaning thereby that the employment of the appellants was not to be discontinued.5. During the period 1979 to 1981 there were several employees engaged as daily wagers. So far as Ganga Pump project nos. 1 & 2 are concerned there were 55 such workers. On 28.7.1995 another notice was issued whereby the daily wage employees were informed that their employment was being terminated in view of the high level decision, taken discontinuing the new schemes, financial crunch and consequent reduction in employment opportunities and hence need for employment of daily wagers no surviving any more. It was also stated that the employment of the daily wagers was being terminated with effect from 1.8.1995 under Section 25F of ID Act. The daily wagers were informed thatamount due and payable to each on of them calculated as per Section 25F of IDwas available to be delivered to them by way ofcheques and each of them should positively collect the amount on 31.7.1995 from the Divisional Office. It is categorically stated on the affidavit of the Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal, Division No.1, Government of Bihar that thecheques were available for being delivered to the employees concerned, but they did not turn up to collect the same. This statement on oath is not controverted in the rejoinder filed on behalf of the appellants. The reasons for termination of the employment of the daily wagers are also mentioned in the affidavit of the Executive Engineer which goes on to say that the project/scheme in which the appellants were engaged has been discontinued. The appellants do not dispute the correctness of these averments. It is not their case that the project/scheme in which they were engaged is still continuing or that anyone else has been appointed in their place after their retrenchment. The High Court has also recorded a finding of fact in its impugned judgment that the amount payable to the daily wagers under Section 25F of the ID Act was available at the Divisional Office in the form ofcheques and the workers were asked to personally appear and receive the payment from the Cashier at the Divisional Office but they did not do so.

Reasoning:
16. In the case before us the workmen have been given onenotice in writing. The reasons for retrechment have been indicated. An opportunity of hearing against the proposed termination was also afforded though not required by Section 25F. Retrenchment was to take effect on expiry of one months from the date of the notice. Compensation as required by Section 25F was available in the form ofcheques for payment to the workers simultaneously with the time of retrenchment and they were given an intimation in advance in that regard. The workers had already approached the High Court and secured an interim order protecting their employment and status quo being maintained. They were obviously not interested in receiving the retrenchment compensation which if done may have had the effect of frustrating the interim order. In these facts and circumstances, the retrenchment of any of the appellants cannot be found fault with on any of the grounds raised by the appellants by reference to clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F.