MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This matter has been placed before the Division Bench upon a reference made by learned Single Judge, who has differed with the view taken by another Single Bench of this Court in Devendra Salolia v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (1) RLR 743. Learned Single Judge while making reference to the Larger Bench has formulated the following question to be answered : "As to whether the wage payable in lieu of one month's notice under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act is the monthly wage actually paid or a monthly wage re-computed with reference to a broken down daily wage multiplied by a factor of 30 such that payment in lieu of monthly wage under Section 25F(a) of the 1947 Act is higher than the actual monthly wage paid to the workman immediately prior to his retrenchment ?"
(2.) The foundational facts giving rise to the dispute are that the petitioner-workman Ganesh Singh was a muster roll employee with the respondent-university from 01.09.1991 to 31.01.1993. He was retrenched vide order dated 30.01.1993 w.e.f. 01.02.1993. The respondent-university in purported compliance of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(for short 'the Act') paid to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 974/- by demand draft dated 29.01.1993, which included amount of Rs. 634/- towards a month's wage in lieu of notice period in compliance of Section 25F(a) of the Act and additional amount of Rs. 340/- towards 15 days wages, as compensation in compliance of Section 25F(b) of the Act. The petitioner approached the Government for making reference of industrial dispute under the Act to an industrial court. The government vide order dated 27.10.2004 refused to make reference on the ground of inordinate delay. The petitioner challenged that order by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4076/2006, which was allowed vide order dated 15.07.2009 and Government's order dated 27.10.2004, declining to make reference, was quashed and set aside and the matter was remanded for reconsideration de-hors the delay. It was thereafter that the appropriate Government vide notification dated 29.10.2009 referred the dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer on the question of validity of retrenchment of the petitioner. Challenge to the order of retrenchment was based by the petitioner on various grounds including contravention of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. The Industrial Tribunal vide its award dated 11.12.2012 answered the reference in negative and dismissed the claim of the petitioner. The aforementioned award has been challenged by the petitioner by way of present writ petition.
(3.) Case of the petitioner, as set up in the memo of writ petition as well as in the claim petition before the Industrial Tribunal is that his services could have been retrenched only after making compliance of Section 25F of the Act, i.e. (a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing, indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice and (b) 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. The petitioner was being paid wages @ Rs. 22.65 per day. Even then the respondents paid to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 974/-, which also included a sum of Rs. 340/- towards 15 days average pay, i.e. Rs. 22.65 x 15 = Rs. 339.75 or 340. After deducting this amount, the petitioner ought to have been paid one month's wages, i.e. Rs. 22.65 x 30 = Rs. 679.50 or 680. Total amount payable to the petitioner in compliance of Sections 25F(a) and (b) of the Act would thus be Rs. 1,020/- whereas he has been paid only a sum of Rs. 974/-. The requisite payable amount thus fell short by Rs. 46/-.;