- (1.) The facts of the four appeals before us (except the cases of Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala, two out of the seven appellants in Civil Appeal No. 633 of 1980) are almost identical with the facts in Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, (1980) 2 Lab LJ 72 : (AIR 1980 SC 1219) decided by this Court on April 29, 1980, Not unnaturally the appellants claim that they should be given the same reliefs as were given to the workmen in that case, but which have been denied to them by the Labour Court in the instant cases. The Labour Court found, as a fact, that except in the cases of three workmen, S. C. Goyal, Usha Kumari and Madhu Bala, the termination of the services of the remaining appellants-workmen was in violation of the provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore invalid and inoperative. But, as the termination of their services was a consequence of their failure to pass the tests prescribed for permanent absorption into the service of the Bank and as it was thought their reinstatement would have the effect of equating them with workmen who had qualified for permanent absorption by passing the test, the Labour Court refuse to give the workmen the relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages, but, instead, directed payment of compensation of six months' salary to each of the workmen, in addition the retrenchment compensation. The appellants claim that they should be awarded the relief of reinstatement with full back wages as was done in the case of Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala and other earlier cases decided by this Court. On the other hand the learned counsel for the employer contended that non-compliance with the requirements of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act did not render the termination of the service of a workman ab initio void but only made it invalid and inoperative and that the Court, when setting aside the termination of the services of a workman on the ground of failure to comply with the provisions of S. 25F, had full discretion not to direct reinstatement with full back wages, but, instead, to direct the payment of suitable compensation. The learned counsel invited our attention to cases where such discretion had been exercised and to other cases arising under Ss. 33 and 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act where it was held that discharge of workmen during the pendency of proceedings, without the previous permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding was pending was not ab initio void and that the Labour Court or the Tribunal was not bound to direct reinstatement merely because it was found that there was a violation of S. 33.
(2.) In Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala (AIR 1980 SC 1219), the facts of which case were identical with the facts of the cases before us, this Court found "that the discharge of the workman on the ground that she did not pass the test, which would have enabled her to be confirmed, was retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2 (oo) and, therefore, the requirements of S. 25F had to be complied with". On that finding, the relief which was awarded was : "the order of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, New Delhi, is set aside and the appellant is directed to be reinstated with full back wages".
(3.) Earlier, in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa (1977) 1 SCR 586 : (AIR 1977 SC 31), a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Chandrachud, Goswami and Gupta, JJ. on a finding that there was a contravention of the provisions of S. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, affirmed the award of the Lower Court directing reinstatement with full back wages. In another case M/s. Avon Services Production Agencies (P) Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana (1979) 1 SCC 1 : (AIR 1979 SC 170), Krishna Iyer and Desai JJ. found that there was retrenchment without compliance with the prescribed conditions precedent. Therefore, they said "the retrenchment was invalid and the relief of reinstatement with full back wages was amply deserved".;