STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DES BANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of hearing of this appeal, certain observations made by a three-Judge Bench in Madhyamik Shiksha parishad, U. P. v. Anil Kumar Mishra to the effect that Section 25-F merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of the service were brought to our notice. An important question that may arise is that if it is held that there is non-compliance with the requirements of Section 25-F, what would be the form of relief that can be granted for breach of such obligation. The question would be whether it would be for a direction for compliance with Section 25-F itself which would amount to payment of the sums mentioned therein or whether the direction would be for reinstatement in service for alleged breach of the requirements of Section 25-F. We notice that a three-Judge Bench of this court in Manager, Reserve Bank of India v. S. Mani observed that the effect of non-compliance with Section 25-F would be a direction for reinstatement only to restore the workmen to the same status which they held when their services were terminated. Since the issues involve important questions, we requested Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior Counsel present in the Court to assist us as amicus curiae in this matter which he has agreed.

(2.) Call this matter after two weeks. Order accordingly.