SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,J. - (1.) The challenge is to the award dated 28.5.2001.Counsel for the petitioner raised two fold submissions. Firstly, the workman was not appointed legally and if he has continued for more than 240 days and the Management found that appointment was not legal, the removal cannot be said to be unjustified and illegal. The second submission is that while passing order of removal, the compliance was made of Section 25F(a) and (b) of the Act of 1947, as while giving notice and compensation amount which was released was amount paid after adjusting the amount of Rs. 1800/-. There were dues of the said workman to the tune of Rs. 1800/- and therefore the amount of compensation was to be adjusted in lieu of the dues and thus the actual amount of compensation which accrued to the workman was not required to be tendered along with notice and notice pay.
(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the Labour Court has examined both the submissions and has relied on the law laid down in "Utkal Asbestos Ltd. v. T.S. Rao and Anr.":1991(62)FLR 972 which relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in "State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha":1960 AIR(SC)610 to answer that the provision of Section 25F(a) and (b) were mandatory and the amount due against the workman could not be adjusted while giving notice under Section 25F and the compensation under Section 25F.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of "Engineering and Ancillary Manufacturers v. Salim Khan:2004(2)CLR 309 , wherein it was held as under: "11. It is also possible for me to accept the contention of Shri Ganguli that the employer cannot adjust the loan amount received by the workman while in employment. In the present case Petitioner had offered the legal dues and had adjusted the amount of Rs. 4600/- which was advanced by the Petitioner to the workman. I do find any illegality or impropriety in recovering the amount of loan given by the employer to the workman. In the present case the loan amount is admitted by the workman. it cannot be said that after severance of the employer employee relationship the employer should be required to chase the workman to recover the loan amount by filing civil litigation. In my opinion the Petitioner employer was fully justified in adjusting the loan amount at the time of parting company with the Respondent workman. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that by adjusting loan amount there is infraction or breach of Section 25F of the Act. It was merely a give and take transaction. The Petitioner had offered the amount and therefore had received the loan amount back from the Respondent workman. On paper the adjustment is reflected to safeguard the interest of the workman that the repaid the loan amount. It therefore do find any illegality in the act on the part of the Petitioner in adjusting the loan amount from the legal dues of the respondent.";