M.R.CALLA, J. - (1.) THROUGH this writ petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 31.12.1988 whereby she had been retrenched.
(2.) THE facts are not in dispute that the petitioner has been appointed on a daily wages basis for Rs. 14/ - per day in the office of Irrigation Department and by the impugned order dated 3LI. 1988, her services were terminate after making a payment of Rs. 364/ - for the period of 1.1.1989 to 31.1.1989 and a sum of Rs. 182/ - as wages for 15 days and Rs. 280/ - as wages for 20 days of the Dec, 1988. Thus, according to the respondents, they had fully complied with the requirement envisaged Under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
(3.) HOWEVER , Mr. Keshote has raised a very interesting question and his submission is that the wages which have been paid to her i.e. a sum of Rs. 364/ - is not as wages for the period from 1.1.1989 to 31.1.1989 but it comes out to be wages for 26 days only i.e. 26 X 14 = 364. Similarly a sum of Rs. 182/ - which has been paid as 15 days wages in lieu of the compensation for a completed year of service is not an amount of wages for 15 days but it is for 13 days only i.e. 13 X 14 = 182, Shri Keshote has, therefore, raised an argument that this is not the full compliance of the requirement of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and it amounts only to a partial compliance in as much as the requirement of Section 25F(a) is to pay the workman's wages in lieu of a notice and the language of Section 25F contemplates one month's notice. Since the wages are to be paid in lieu of one month's notice, the wages have to be for a complete month and for the purpose of the compliance of Section 25F the period of a full month cannot be truncated merely because a person had been appointed on daily wages and had he continued to be in service, he would have earned the wages for 26 days only 4 days being the gazetted holidays i.e. Sundays etc. and on the same reasoning the compensation of Rs. 182/ - which has been paid, is also only for 13 days where as it should have been for 15 days. The petitioner had completed one year's service and the requirement Under Section 25F is to pay as compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months. Shri B.K. Sharma's argument on behalf of the respondents is that according to the language of Section 25F it has been provided that the payment of wages is in lieu of one month's notice. So far as the employees who are working on daily wages, the effective period of one month is only 26 days and therefore such daily wages employees are to be treated for computation of compensation only with respect to the effective days for which they would have worked had they been in service. His argument is that had the petitioner continued in service, he could not have earned wages for a period of more than 26 days in a month and therefore, the payment of wages has been calculated for 26 days in lieu of the notice and the pay of 13 days wages as compensation which must be considered to be sufficient for the purpose of compliance of Section 25F.;