The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a labor law case, set aside a judgment of the Labor Court which ordered the reinstatement of a worker with 50% back wages after noting that the worker’s retrenchment was done by the organization in cause. following due process of law.

In doing so, the court observed that the petitioner – Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (Pichhore) had complied with the mandate of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act – which enumerates the various conditions suspensive to the withdrawal of workers – which dropped the respondent workman.

A single bench of judges Justice Anand Pathak in its observed order, “Cumulatively, it appears that compliance with section 25F of the (Industrial Disputes) It was recorded and the Labor Court had earlier seen the judgment dated 26-07-2010 gave liberty to the petitioners for withdrawal and therefore the petitioners withdrew the workman following the legal procedure. Even otherwise, the employee was working in a private school (since 1994-95) during that period and after almost 15 years he woke up and started proceedings in the year 2009. Hence, he is suffering from inordinate delays and lacunae without any explanation .“.

Regarding the language of section 25F, the high court said that there are two possibilities in case of a withdrawal and both are distinguished by the incorporation of the word “OR”.

It was said, “Section 25F(a) of the Act envisages two contingencies. One is that the worker must be given one month’s notice in writing, stating the reason for withdrawal, and then the worker will be withdrawn after the expiry of the one month’s notice period. Another situation is that if the worker has been paid wages for the notice period in lieu of such notice, then he can be retrenched. Both of these contingencies are distinguished by the incorporation of the word “OR”.

The court stated that if wages for one month’s notice are given and severance pay is also provided, then there is no requirement to give notice to the government under Section 25F(c).

“In other words, if the employer offers one month’s salary, then he can dispense with giving one month’s notice in writing. As exemption from notice is at the employer’s discretion and if he pays wages for the notice period and under Section 25F(b) of the Act, if he pays retrenchment compensation and at the time of retrenchment, then the requirement of notice to the appropriate government under Section 25F(c ) from the law would not exist,” he pointed out.

The Tribunal also observed that it would be contrary to the legislative intent of the word “OR” to be omitted while construing. It was said:

“Once the employer has decided to pay one month’s wages and compensation under section 25F(a) and (c) of the Act, then the obligation to give notice under section 25F(c) of the Act is not attracted. Any contrary interpretation would by default delete or omit the word “OR” from the statute as figured in section 25F(a) of the Act. This would be contrary to legislative intent“

The court considered the plea of ​​the Samiti against a labor court order setting aside the dismissal of the respondent workman by the Samiti. The respondent Mukesh Kumar Bhatt was retired in 1994 by Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, after which he initiated conciliation proceedings in 2009, 15 years after his termination. If the procedure failed, he submitted an application to the labor court. The Labor Court in 2018 ruled in favor of the respondent and ordered his reinstatement with partial back pay. The employment tribunal found that the employer had not fully complied with the withdrawal procedural requirements under Section 25F, regarding notice and compensation.

The High Court questioned the respondent’s delay in bringing the legal action without any explanation and thus ruled in favor of the employer that due process was observed.

“Cumulatively, it appears that Section 25F of the Act has been complied with and the Labor Court has earlier passed its order dated 26-07-2010 giving liberty to the petitioners for withdrawal and therefore the petitioners have withdrawn the workman following the process legal. Even otherwise, the employee was working in a private school (since 1994-95) during that period and after almost 15 years he rose from his slumber and started the proceedings in the year 2009. Hence, he is suffering from inordinate delay and scratch without no explanation,” he said. .

Admitting the request, the high court annulled the decision of the labor court.

Case Title: Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Pichhore & Ors. Vs. Mukesh Kumar Bhatt

Case no: MISC. PETITION NO. 2923 of 2018

Click here to read/download the order