- (1.) Regpat Ram, a Work Mistry, was retrenched from service by respondent No. 1 on 21st of August, 1970. He joined as Work Mistry at Bhakra on 13th June, 1956. Mr. Gurbachan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the persons junior to him are still working as Work Mistries (one of such persons is Amar Singh) and the petitioner being senior, his services could not be terminated. He further contended that he was neither offered nor paid the retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act; that the petitioner also submitted a representation for his reinstatement with full back wages and on his representation for his reinstatement with full back wages and on his representation the matter was referred to the Assistant Labour Commissioner by the respondents. The parties represented before him. The Assistant Labour Commissioner submitted the report to respondent No. 2 to the effect that there could be no conciliation between the parties. Then the petitioner represented to the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation, New Delhi, for referring the matter to the Labour Court. The Labour Ministry requested the Irrigation and Power Ministry to refer the matter to the Labour Court to raise the industrial dispute. But that request was declined by the Irrigation and Power Ministry. It is in this situation that the present petition has been filed.
(2.) Return has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. I have given my careful consideration to the matter. After perusal of the documents and the return filed by the respondent, I am of the opinion, that the matter should have been referred to the Labour Court in accordance with the letter issued by the Ministry of Labour and Rehabilitation. According to Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act no work-man employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than a year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. In the instant case, notice to the workman was issued by the Management on 25th July, 1970 but he was not paid retrenchment compensation which is a pre-condition for valid retrenchment, before his actual retrenchment on 21st August, 1970. Another point which has been urged in the petition is regarding the seniority of the petitioner over Amar Singh who is still working as Work Mistry. From the minutes of joint conciliation held on 18th November, 1971 (Annexure C/1) it is clear that Amar Singh is still working who is junior to Ragpat Ram. Amar Singh's date of appointment as Work Mistry was 1st August, 1960 while the date of appointment of Raghpat Ram as Work Mistry was 13th June, 1956. I do not know why the Irrigation and Power Ministry has declined to refer the matter to a competent Tribunal. It is a fit case which could have been referred to the Tribunal. The petitioner is senior to Amar Singh who is still working as a Work Mistry and no compensation was paid to him as required under Section 25F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. A similar case came before the Supreme Court and it was held by their Lordships in the State of Bombay and others v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and others, 1960 AIR(SC) 610, as under :- "On a plain reading of Section 25F(b) it is clear that the requirement prescribed by it is a condition precedent for the retrenchment of the workman, and non-compliance with the said condition renders the impugned retrenchment invalid and in-operative. Section 25-I does not cover cases of recoveries of money prescribed by Section 25F(b) and hence it is not open to the aggrieved person to seek for an appropriate remedy under that section. The Industrial Tribunals are set up for the redress of labour grievances. In fact all these labour legislations like Industrial Disputes Act, Workmen's Compensation Act, Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act and Bonus Act etc. are enacted for the benefit and safeguard of the labour. In the present case, as I have already observed, a dispute arises as the petitioner is senior to the one mentioned above but the petitioner has been retrenched and his junior is still working and no compensation was paid to him. Accordingly respondent No. 3 i.e. Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation and Power, New Delhi (respondent No. 3) is directed that his dispute may be referred to a competent Tribunal. This petition is accordingly allowed but there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.;