LexBINOY KUMAR CHATTERJEE versus M/S JUGANTAR LTD. AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
c D E F G H 684 .. JUNOY K,U~AR CHATTERJEE , .. _. l .. ~ v.' M/s JUGANTAR.LTD. AND OTHERS April 6, 198,3 -'.') ' (R.S. PATHAK AND A.P. SEN, JJ.) Industrial /aw-Fresh appointment after attaining superannuation and ·~t Of all'd.ues-Whether termination of appointment after the axpiry of the. · COnffaCi will 'attract the provisions of Section 25 'F' of the Industrial Disputes Act-Whether s11ch a termination is "retrenchment" within the meaning of Section 2 (00) of the Act, The petitioner v.ho joined the respondent Company as Sub Editor rose to the position of Assistant Editor in 1976. On completing the age of sixty years he was served with a notice of retirement dated November 6, 1976 inform~. ing him that he stood retired with effect from December 1, 1976 •. He was paid and he willingly received his dues on account of gratuity and Provident Fund following such retirement. Thereafter, he was offered fresh employment as an Assistant Editor for a period of twelve months under a contract. He accepted the employment on that basis. On the expiry of the period of twelve months. he raised a dispute alleging that his Services had been wrongly terminated with effect from December l, 1976 and that he was entitled to continue in·service. The Labour Court held (1) that he had actually retired from service with effect from Deceml::er I, 1976, on reaching the age of superannuation and had received his gratuity and Provident Fund ; (ii) that he entered into a fresh agreement with. full kpowledge of its contents and consequences and took up fre9h employment with the employer for a period of twelve months only and (iii) therefore his case not being one of retrenchment, he is not entitled to the claim for re-instatement. Hence the petition for Special Leave to appeal against the Award. Dismissing the petition, the Court HELD 1 : J. The subsequent service of the petitioner aro~e on a fresh contract and cannot be regarded as a continuation of the original service.t687 F) 1 : 2 The resp~ndent employer is a Newspaper establishment, and Section 14 of the Working-JournaJist (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955 provides that the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order's) Act, 1946, as in force for the time b~ing will apply' to every newspaper establishment. The Bengal Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1946 were.amended by the State Government by a Notification dated October 14, 1946 and Rule 2 A directed that matters relating to superannuation would be additional included in the Schedule to the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act 1946. In the re1ult the standing order . ' - ·- • ., 8INOY KUMAR v. JUGANTAR LTD. (Pathak, J.) . 68Ě drawn up and applied by the respondent providing for retirement on reaching the age of superannuation fell within the syope of its powers. The relevant standing order provided that a Working Journalist would retire at the age of 60 years. On attaining that age, the petitioner's services ceased, and nothing more was required. In fact in acceptance of that position he drew his gratuity and Provident Fund dues. [687 D·G] 2 .: 1. The age of superannuation marks the end point of the workman's services. If he-is employed atleast thereafter for a term, such employment cannot be regarded as employment contemplated within the definition of the expression ''retrenchment" in Section 2 (00) of the Industrial Disputes Act. [689 A-B] 2 : 2. Section 25 'F' applies where a workman is fetrenched and there- A B fore the fresh employment of the petitioner not falling within the definition of C "retrenchment" his case can not be governed by Section 25 'F'. [688 A-BJ State &ink of India v. Sri N. S11ndera Mony [1976] 3 S.C.R. 160 : Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Orissa & Ors. [1977] 1 S.C.R. 586 : Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Shambunath Mokhetjee and others [1978] I S.C.R. 591 ; Surendra Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Central Govt. lndustria/-c11m-Labo11r Court, New Delhi & Anr. [1980] 4 S.C.R. 443, D distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7299 of 1981. From the Judgment and Order dated the 27th April, 1981 of E the Court of Second Labour West Bengal in Case No. VIIl-C-3/ In9. . · M.K. Ramamurthy, Santosh Chatterjee and M.C. Dhingra for the petitioner. A.K. Sen, N.R. Choudhary, D.N. Mukherjee and Santosh Mukherjee
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.