Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court holding that the appellants stand about applicability of Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) was not correct.
(2.) Controversy lies within a narrow compass. Appellants were employees of the Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesales Stores Limited (in short the CONFED), fourth respondent herein. The service conditions of its employees are covered by CONFED Staff Service Rules, 1975 (in short the Rules). On account of continued financial losses, a restructuring plan for gainful employment for employees was prepared. It was noted that Retail Outlets (in short the ROL) were causing huge loss to the organization. Therefore, it was decided that all ROL should be closed being financially non-viable. Retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25F of the Act was paid. In the retrenchment order it was specifically stated as follows: "It is made clear that employees of CONFED from where the retrenchment is being effected are not covered by Chapter V-B of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, necessitating any permission under Section 25N of the said Act. Therefore the retrenchment is being effected in accordance with Chapter V-A by employing with Section 25F and other provisions of the said Chapter."
(3.) Questioning the retrenchment, writ petitions were filed before the High Court taking the stand that provisions of Section 25N and not Section 25F were applicable and in any event the appellants were entitled to the benefit in terms of Rule 35(b) of the Rules. High Court did not find any substance in the stand and dismissed the Writ Petitions holding that there was compliance with the requirements of Section 25F(b) of the Act.;