- (1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the award dated September 21, 1985 (Ex. 6) passed by the Labour Court.
(2.) THE brief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are that the respondent losses incurred by the petitioner vide their meeting held on December 7, 1983. It was decided in that meeting that due to heavy losses the post of Accountant and Store Keeper may be abolished and in accordance with the resolution, the services of the petitioner were terminated and the petitioner was paid the retrenchment compensation along with order of the termination Ex. 1 dated December 12, 1983. The respondent raised an industrial dispute and State referred the following question for decision of the Labour Court. The Labour Court after hearing both the parties and perusing the record came to the conclusion that the petitioner's services were terminated on December 12, 1983 and a cheque of Rs. 1915. 85 was given simultaneously but that was given with the order at 2. 00 p. m. and same could not be encashed on the same day on account of bank being closed, therefore, tribunal found that the amount was not paid to the petitioner simultaneously, as such there is a breach of Section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the tribunal set aside the order of termination. In this connection the reliance was placed of the decision of the Madras High Court reported in 1977 LIC page 1338 (R. Sankaran v. The Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Madras and Anr. ). The second question is that the petitioner was also not paid the full compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This contention was negativedby the tribunal and the tribunal found that the amount of compensation which was calculated in a sum of Rs. 1915. 85 being the valid calculation and the termination order cannot be quashed on that count. Aggrieved against this judgment the present writ petition has been filed by the Management.
(3.) MR. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously urged before me that a valid cheque tendered along with the termination order by way of compensation should be treated to be a sufficient compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Learned counsel further submitted that the decision given by the Madras High Court in 1977 LIC, 1338 (supra) has been over-ruled by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the case reported in 1977 Factory Law Reports page 403 (Management of Industrial Chemicals Ltd. , Madras v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras and Ors. ). As against this Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent, has invited my attention to the decision given by this Court in the case reported in 1984 RLR page 981 (RSRTC and Anr. v. Judge, Labour Court, Jaipur and, Anr. ).;