Guru Jambheshwar University Through ... vs Dharam Pal

3. The respondent Dharam Pal issued a notice dated 20.1.1998 under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') alleging that he was employed as an unskilled workman by the appellant Guru Jambheshwar University, Hisar, on 2.10.1995, but his services were illegally terminated on 15.1.1998. As the conciliation proceedings could not fructify, the Government of Haryana referred the dispute under Section 10(1) of the Act for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Labour Court") regarding the validity of the termination of services of the respondent Dharam Pal and the relief which he was entitled to get in case the termination order was found to be illegal.

4. The respondent in his claim statement pleaded, inter alia, that he was appointed as unskilled workman on the post of Mali (gardener) in the University by a verbal order dated 2.10.1995; that he was removed from service on 2.7.1997 but subsequently he was taken back on duty on 15.10.1997; that he was illegally removed from the service of the University on 15.1.1998; that the University was paying wages of Rs.1638/- per month before his removal from service; that the University had regular work and persons junior to him had been retained in service and had been regularized; that the University was forcing the workman to work on contract basis despite the fact that there is work of regular nature; that the University was adopting unfair labour practice and that his retrenchment was illegal as neither any notice was given nor any compensation was paid to him at the time of his retrenchment.

5. The Registrar of the University filed a reply on the grounds, inter alia, that the respondent was engaged as Mali on daily wages on 2.12.1995 and not on 2.10.1995, as claimed by him; that he was appointed for doing specific job of Mali in the Farming/Horticulture Wing of the University; that the Government of Haryana on the basis of the orders passed in CWP No.4522 of 1994 (Kulbhushan v. State of Haryana) by the High Court had issued instructions to the University vide letter No.12/5-96/Ad.I(5) dated 17.1.1996 that no appointment on daily wage basis should be made and all appointments should be made on contract basis; that in accordance with the instructions all existing employees in the University who were working on daily wage basis were put on contract basis; that the respondent and some other employees engaged on contract basis had been appointed without following any procedure; that meanwhile the University advertised the post of Mali for making regular appointments in order to comply with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; that the respondent also applied for the said post of Mali and appeared in interview but he was not selected yet he was allowed to continue; that consequent upon the closure of the farming operations in the University and cessation of other seasonal work, the respondent was given one month's notice vide University letter no.485-500 dated 15.12.1997; that on completion of one month, the services of the respondent were retrenched vide order dated 15.1.1998; that a cheque bearing no.416869 dated 15.1.1998 was also given to the respondent in compliance of Section 25F(b) of the Act as retrenchment compensation; that as there was some work in the University all the employees who were retrenched earlier were called but the respondent did not turn up for duty though 14 other employees reported for duty and were engaged and a letter in this regard was sent to the Labour and Conciliation Officer, Hisar on 21.5.1998. It was specifically pleaded that the services of the respondent were retrenched after duly complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act and that in the regular selection held for the post of Mali the respondent was not selected by the selection committee.

10. In the demand notice served by the respondent upon the University under Section 2-A of the Act on 20.1.1998, it was stated "that the University was paying him Rs.1638/- per month before removal." Again in para 2 of the claim statement which was filed by the respondent before the Labour Court, wherein he described himself as petitioner, it was stated "that the University was paying the petitioner Rs.1.638/- per month before the removal." In the reply, it is also the specific case of the University that the respondent was being paid on monthly basis at the rate of Rs.1642/- per month. Therefore, there is no dispute that the respondent was being paid wages on monthly basis though there is slight difference in the actual amount which was being paid to him. The Labour Court has recorded a finding that a cheque for Rs.1642/- was given by the University to the respondent as retrenchment compensation. Since the respondent was being paid wages on monthly basis, his average pay has to be calculated in accordance with the formula given in clause (i) of Section 2(aaa) of the Act which would mean the sum total of wages paid to him in three complete calendar months immediately preceding his retrenchment and dividing the said amount by three. The respondent was being paid wages amounting to Rs.1642/- per month in immediately three preceding months before his retrenchment. Therefore, the "average pay" in accordance with Section 2(aaa)(i) would come to Rs.1642/-. The respondent had worked for two years and one month and, therefore, he was entitled to thirty (15 x 2) days of average pay by way of retrenchment compensation in order to comply with requirement of Section 25F(b) of the Act. The "average pay" of the respondent being Rs.1642/- per month and he being entitled to 30 days' average pay by way of retrenchment compensation, he was required to be paid Rs.1642/- as retrenchment compensation. The University gave him a cheque for Rs.1642/- at the time of his retrenchment and, therefore, there was full compliance of Section 25F(b) of the Act.

Provided that the completion of five years shall not be necessary where the termination of the employment of any employee is due to death or disablement :

15. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the Labour Court is clearly erroneous in law and has to be set aside. The High Court did not go into the question at all and summarily dismissed the writ petition by a one line order observing that the compensation offered to the workman was short of the amount actually due.

16. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 21.3.2005 passed by the High Court and the award of the Labour Court dated 9.11.2004 are set aside. It is held that the University had paid the retrenchment compensation to the respondent Dharam Pal in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the order passed whereby his services were terminated. No costs.