GURU JAMBHESHWAR UNIVERSITY, HISAR versus DHARAM PAL

Citation: [2007] 1 S.C.R. 993 · Decided: 17-01-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
GURU JAMBHESHW AR UNIVERSITY, HISAR 
A 
v. 
DHARAMPAL 
JANUARY 17,2007 
[G.P. MA THUR AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Sections 2(aaa) and 25-F. 
c 
Workman-Termination of services-Retrenchment compensation-
Method of calculation-Principle of "twenty-six working days"-
Applicability of-Services of an unskilled workman employed on monthly 
wages terminated due to closure of farming operations-Retrenchment 
compensation paid in terms of S. 25-F-Labour Court calculated the 
compensation on the basis of the average pay for 26 days and held 
D 
that the retrenchment fell short of the amount required to be paid under 
S. · ,25-F-Accordingly, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the 
workman with 50% back wages and continuity of service-High Court 
summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the employer-Correctness 
of-Held: Since the workman was employed on monthly wages, his average 
E 
pay has to be calculated in accordance with the formula given in Section 
2(aaa)(i)-Thus, the average pay would be total wages in preceding three 
months divided by three-The principle of "twenty six working days" for 
determining the compensation under S. 25-F(b) is not applicable-Hence, 
retrenchment compensation is in full compliance of S. 25-F(b)-High 
Court judgment and Labour Court award set aside. 
F 
Interpretation Statutes: 
Principles of interpretation-Literal Rule-Held: The words of a 
statute must prima facie be given their ordinary, natural and grammatical 
G 
meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity-The language used in 
Section 2(aaa) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is absolutely plain and 
clear and there is not the slightest ambiguity in the same. 
Words & Phrases: 
H 
993 
994 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
"Average pay"-Meaning of-In the context of Section 2(aaa) of the 
--1-
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
... :r-
~ 
The respondent was appointed as an unskilled workman on.the ~ost 
• 
,_ 
of Mali (gardener) on a contract basis by the appellant-University. The 
B 
respondent's services were terminated consequent upon the closure of the 
farming operations in the University and cessation of other seasonal work. 
The respondent was given retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 
25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
'1 
) 
' 
The industrial dispute raised by the respondent was referred under 
l-' 
c 
Section 10(1) of the Act for adjudication by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court. The Labour Court held that one day's average pay of the 
respondent should be calculated by dividing his monthly salary by 26 and 
the quotient so arrived at should be multiplied by 30 (15x2) as he had 
worked for two years and one month. The Labour Court further held that 
D 
the retrenchment compensation paid to the respondent fell short of the 
amount which was to be paid under Section 25-F(b) of the Act. Accordingly, 
~ 
the Labour Court gave an award directing that the respondent be reinstated 
' 'y r. 
with continuity in service and all other consequent service b~nefits along 
with 50% back wages from the date of demand notice. The High Court 
l 
E 
summarily dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Hence the 
r
appeal 
I-
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The language used in Section 2(aaa) of the Industrial 
F 
Disputes Act, 1947 is absolutely plain and clear and there: is not the 
slightest ambiguity in the same. It is a well settled principle that the words 
'>< 
of a Statute are first understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense 
and phrases and:sentences are construed according to their grammatical 
meaning, unless that leads to some absurdity or there is something in the 
G 
context or' in' the object of the statute to suggest tO the contrary. The true 
. way is to take the words as the legislature has given them, and to take the 
meaning which the. words given naturally i~ply, unless Wh~re the 
construction of those words is; either by the preambie or by the cijfitext of 
'\-
· the words in question, controlied or altered. As is often said the golden rule 
'T 
H 
is that the. words of a stat~te. must prima facie be given their ordinary 
,· 
f 
GURU JAMBHESHWAR UNIVERSITY, HISAR v. DHARAM PAL 
9<)5 
meaning and natural and ordinary meaning of the words should not be 
A 
departed from unless it can be shown that the legal context in which the 
words are used requires a different meaning. 
[Para 9] [1000-F-H, 1

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.