- (1.)Petitioner challenges Ext. P-3 Award of the Labour Court, Ernakulam (first respondent) ordering reinstatement of the second respondent. In the claim statement filed by the second respondent he contended that his service was terminated by the petitioner management with effect from 10th June 1985 illegally. He claims to have been in service from 22nd December 1975. First respondent held that the petitioner has not complied with S.25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act when it retrenched the second respondent and so it is not valid. He is directed to be reinstated.
(2.)Petitioner's case is that it had engaged a counsel to represent its case before the first respondent, that due to oversight there was omission to note the posting date and so Ext. P-3 award was passed ex parte. Petitioner filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decision with delay condonation petition. First respondent held that sufficient grounds have not been made out to condone the delay and hence dismissed that petition.
(3.)First respondent as per Ext. P-3 Award held that the retrenchment of the second respondent cannot be sustained in view of non compliance of Clauses (a) to (c) of S.25F of the Act. The notice issued by the Secretary of the Petitioner Society dated 6th June 1985 discloses that the governing body of the Society decided to abolish the post of Store-keeper cum Clerk cum Supervisor with effect from 10th June 1985 and called upon the second respondent to get himself relieved from the service on receipt of the amounts due to him as per law. Learned counsel for the second respondent pointed out that the said notice does not satisfy the mandatary requirements of S.25F of the Act and so it cannot have any legal validity. Petitioner's contention is that notice is in substantial compliance of S.25F and at any rate hyper technical approach cannot be adopted by the Court.
;