HINDUSTAN STEEL LIMITED Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had been employed as Head Time Keepers in the Rourkela Unit of Hindustan Steel Limited, appellant herein, The third and the fourth respondents were appointed on September 24, 1959 and September 14, 1959 respectively, each for a period of three years. The fifth respondent was also appointed for a period of three years from July 15, 1957 but as Time Keeper, not Head Time Keeper. In his case the period was extended after the expiry of three years from time to time till October 15, 1962. In the meantime he had been promoted from Time Keeper to Head Time Keeper with effect from 3-11-1960. Pursuant to an alleged policy to "streamline the organisation and to effect economies wherever possible", the appellant chose not to renew the contracts of service of the Head Time keepers who were eight in number including these three respondents. There was no order terminating their services; according to the appellant the termination was automatic on the expirty of the contractual period of service. The aforesaid three respondents raised an industrial dispute through their union, respondent No 6, Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha. the dispute whether the termination of the services of the three respondents was justified and, if not, to what relief they were entitled,was referred by the Government of Orissa for adjudication to the Labour Court of Orissa, Bhubaneswar. The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court by his award dated 12-12-1964 vacated the orders of termination passed against these three respondents and held that they were entitled to "reinstatement with continuity of service" and also to "full wages for the period between the date of their release from service and the date of their reinstatement." The award in based on the following findings:

(2.) The main question in this appeal is whether the three respondents had been retrenched by their employer as found by the Labour Court. If these were cases of retrenchment, the order of reinstatement made by the Labour Court was obviously a valid order as, admittedly, the condition precedent to the retrenchment of workmen laid down is Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been satisfied. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant both here and in the High Court was that the services of the three respondents came to an end by efflux of time and that such termination of service did not fall within the definition of retenchement in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Solicitor General appearing for the appellant frankly conceded that this appeal was covered by a recent decision of this Court, State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, AIR 1976 SC 1111 and the decision was against the contention of the appellant. He however submitted that this decision which was rendered by a Bench of three judges was in apparent conflict with an earlier decision of this Court. Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla v. A. D. Divelkar. 1957 SCR 121 = (AIR 1957 SC 121) which was by a larger Bench and that Sundara Money's case therefore required reconsideration.

(3.) Retrenchment has been defined in Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act as follows :