- (1.) Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had been employed as Head Time Keepers in the Rourkela Unit of Hindustan Steel Limited, appellant herein, The third and the fourth respondents were appointed on September 24, 1959 and September 14, 1959 respectively, each for a period of three years. The fifth respondent was also appointed for a period of three years from July 15, 1957 but as Time Keeper, not Head Time Keeper. In his case the period was extended after the expiry of three years from time to time till October 15, 1962. In the meantime he had been promoted from Time Keeper to Head Time Keeper with effect from 3-11-1960. Pursuant to an alleged policy to "streamline the organisation and to effect economies wherever possible", the appellant chose not to renew the contracts of service of the Head Time keepers who were eight in number including these three respondents. There was no order terminating their services; according to the appellant the termination was automatic on the expirty of the contractual period of service. The aforesaid three respondents raised an industrial dispute through their union, respondent No 6, Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha. the dispute whether the termination of the services of the three respondents was justified and, if not, to what relief they were entitled,was referred by the Government of Orissa for adjudication to the Labour Court of Orissa, Bhubaneswar. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court by his award dated 12-12-1964 vacated the orders of termination passed against these three respondents and held that they were entitled to "reinstatement with continuity of service" and also to "full wages for the period between the date of their release from service and the date of their reinstatement." The award in based on the following findings: (i) the three respondents had been retrenched from employment, and the requirements of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act not having been satisfied, the retrenchment was contrary to law: (ii) in terminating the services of these employees the management had adopted unfair labour practice and the action of the employer was not bona fide; and that (iii) it had not been proved that they had any alternative employment after they were released from service. The appellant challenged the award by filing a writ petition in the Orissa High Court. It was contended before the High court that the services of these employees had come to an end by efflux of time, that the management had not terminated their services and as such these were not cases of retrenchment. Another submission made on behalf of the management was that the employees not having proved that they had made efforts to minimize their losses during the period of unemployment, the award for payment of full back wages was erroneous. The High Court overruled both the contentions and dismissed the writ petition. In this appeal by special leave the appellant questions the correctness of the decision of the High Court.
(2.) The main question in this appeal is whether the three respondents had been retrenched by their employer as found by the Labour Court. If these were cases of retrenchment, the order of reinstatement made by the Labour Court was obviously a valid order as, admittedly, the condition precedent to the retrenchment of workmen laid down is Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been satisfied. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant both here and in the High Court was that the services of the three respondents came to an end by efflux of time and that such termination of service did not fall within the definition of retenchement in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Solicitor General appearing for the appellant frankly conceded that this appeal was covered by a recent decision of this Court, State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, AIR 1976 SC 1111 and the decision was against the contention of the appellant. He however submitted that this decision which was rendered by a Bench of three judges was in apparent conflict with an earlier decision of this Court. Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla v. A. D. Divelkar. 1957 SCR 121 = (AIR 1957 SC 121) which was by a larger Bench and that Sundara Money's case therefore required reconsideration.
(3.) Retrenchment has been defined in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act as follows : "2 (oo). "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include- (a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman contains a stipulation in that behalf; or (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health:" Analysing this definition in State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, (AIR 1976 SC 1111) this Court held : "Termination..... for any reason whatsoever are the key words. Whatever the reason every termination spells retrenchment. So the sole question is has the employee's service been terminated ..... A termination takes place where a term expires either by the active step of the master or the running out of the stipulated term ..... Termination embraces not merely the act of termination by the employer, but the fact of termination howsoever produced. ........an employer terminates employment not merely by passing an order as the service runs. He can do so by writing a composite order, one giving employment and the other ending or limiting it. A separate, subsequent determination is not the sole magnetic pull of the provision. A pre-emptive provision to terminate is struck by the same vice as the post-appointment termination." This Decision, as conceded by the Solicitor general, goes against the contention of the appellant and is conclusive on the main question that arises for consideration in this appeal. It may also be noted that Section 25F (a) which lays down that no workman who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer unless he has been given one month's notice or wages in lieu of such notice, has a proviso which says that "no such notice shall be necessary if the retrenchment is under an agreement which specifies a date for the termination of service." Clearly, the proviso would have been quite unnecessary if retrenchment as defined in Section 2 (oo) was intended not to include termination of service by efflux of time in terms of an agreement between the parties. This is one more reason why it must be held that the labour Court was right in taking the view that the respondents were retrenched contrary to the provisions of Section 25F.;