| Citation | 1990 SCR (3) 111, 1990 SCC (3) 682 |
| Date of Judgment | 4th May 1990 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Civil Appeal Nos. 3241-48 of 1981 etc |
| Appellant | Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Ltd., Chandigarh |
| Respondent | Presiding officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh etc |
| Bench | Saikia, K. N. (J), Mukharji Sabyasachi (CJ), Ray, B. C. (J), Kania, M. H. Agrawal, S. C.(J) |
| Referred | Section 2 (oo) of Industrial Dispute Act |
FACTS OF THE CASE
• The Presiding Officer, Land court, Chandigarh (respondents) were appointed under the management of the corporation i.e., Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Ltd, (Chandigarh).
• The respondents were dismissed from their job on the ground that the chairperson is not empowered to appoint the workmen.
• They instituted the suit in the court of labour where the court held that the service of the workers is unlawfully terminated with no retrenchment and they are accountable for reinstatement with back wages except for Yashpal.
• They will be paid wages up to 10th October 1979 with the continuity of services under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. Then the appeal was filed in the High Court. • The court set aside the order of the labour court’s order of replacement with full back wages and endurance of service.
ISSUES
I. What does the definition of word “Retrenchment” under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 mean?
CONTENTIONS
EMPLOYER’S CONTENTION (PETITIONER):
The petitioner pleaded that the word retrenchment means termination of services of workmen as surplus labour by the employer for any reason under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
WORKMEN’S CONTENTIONS (RESPONDENT):
The workmen contended that retrenchment means termination of services of workers for any reason except those reasons which are excluded under Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act.
JURISDICTIONS
• Justice K.N. Saikia, Chief Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji, Justice B.C. Ray, Justice M. H. Kania, Justice S.C. Agarwal: The bench analysed the definition of retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of Industrial Dispute Act by stating the necessities:
1. Termination of services of a workmen
2. By the employer
3. For any reason
4. Otherwise, then as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action.
The court stated that the purpose of the statute must be considered instead of presumed intention.
• The bench further specified that there is an irregularity in the definition of Section 2(oo) with the main provisions of Section 25 F, 25 G, and 25 H but there can be Harmonious Construction.
• The bench referred to the case of Sundara Money, the Supreme Court considered broader liberal meaning, refusing narrower meaning. It also definite by concluding from the succeeding cases that it is not obligatory to stick to the precedents if that changes the basis of legislation.
• It further concluded that the word “means’’ in the definition not only states that it includes certain things or acts; it is a definition to which no additional meaning can be allocated.
• The bench also states that if the retrenchment is understood in a wider sense, then the right of employers under the standing order and contract of employment in case of termination must have been affected by Section 2 (oo), 25 F, etc, and their rights are not affected but only an additional responsibility was compulsory on the employer so that the affected workmen are entitled to retrenchment benefit. It also specified that the court must write the intention of the parliament if not by the legislature. It further stated that the court must understand the statute and apply it according to the facts.
DECISION
• The court dismissed civil appeal no. 3241-48 of 1981, 686(NL) of 1982, 18 17 of 1982, 1898 of 1982, 3261 of 1982, 1866 of 1982, 1868 of 1982, 8456 of 1983, 10828 of 1983 and S.L.P. (C) No. 3149 of 1983 were dismissed with the quantification of the cost at Rs. 3000 in each of the appeals.
• In the civil appeal no. 686 of 1982, the court directed the reinstatement of the respondent as he was serving since 1983.
• In the civil appeal no. 885 of 1980, the court disposed of the appeal and directed to pay the workmen the compensation amounting to Rs. 1,25000 with reinstatement.
• Civil appeal no. 4116 of 1984, 512-513 of 1984, 783 of 1984 were wrongly placed according to the court and the subject matter is not related to all the appeals with a similar issue involved in this case.
CONCLUSION
• The conclusion that we can draw from this case is that the word retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act must be considered and read in a broader sense.
• It also states that interpretation of the statute must accord with its intention and must apply to the facts of the case consequently.
• Therefore, interpreting the definition of retrenchment must harmony to its wider sense and not rendering to the presumed intention.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Shravani Vilas Khairkar of B. C. Thakur College of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
