K.V. ANIL MITHRA & ANR. versus SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 11 S.C.R. 297 · Decided: 27-10-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

297
K.V. ANIL MITHRA & ANR.
v.
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT &
ANR.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 9067 of 2014)
OCTOBER 27, 2021
[AJAY RASTOGI AND ABHAY S. OKA, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – ss.25F, 25B – Termination –
Retrenchment– Violation of s.25F–Respondent-University
regularized appellants-workmen serving on daily wage basis in non-
teaching staff category – Objections raised w.r.t the manner of
regularization– De-regularised and terminated – Order of de-
regularisation upheld by Division Bench of High Court, question
of non-observance of the provisions of 1947 Act left open – Dispute
raised by appellants – Industrial Tribunal held termination to be in
violation of s.25F, award passed– Set aside by Single Judge – Order
confirmed by Division Bench – On appeal, held: Nature of
employment and the manner in which the workman has been
employed is not significant while invoking the mandatory compliance
of s.25F – In a case where the workman has been in continuous
service for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months before
the alleged date of terminationas contemplated u/s.25B, the employer
is under an obligation to comply with the twin conditions u/Clauses
(a) and (b) of s.25F– In the present case, the appellants served
from the year 1993-1997, their services were terminated in sequel
to order dtd.24.03.97– Appointments were made on daily wage basis
under the orders of the Vice Chancellor, the competent/appointing
authority– Merely because the appointments were not in accordance
with the procedure prescribed under the Ordinance would not
disentitle the appellants from claiming protection under provisions
of the 1947 Act– Termination of the appellants was in violation of
s.25F – Impugned judgment set aside– Award modified– Sree
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit Ordinance, 1993.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 –ss.2(g), (j), (k), (s), (oo) – Held:
Every termination for any reason whatsoever provided it does not
fall in any of the exception clause of s.2(oo), is a retrenchment.
[2021] 11 S.C.R. 297
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
298
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 11 S.C.R.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Scheme of the Act – Discussed.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947– s.25F – Non-observance of
mandatory requirement of – Appropriate relief workman is entitled
for – Discussed.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The termination which was given effect to by
the 1st respondent was a retrenchment as defined under Section
2(oo), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The term ‘retrenchment’
leaves no manner of doubt that the termination of the workman
for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as punishment inflicted
by way of disciplinary action are being termed as retrenchment
with certain exceptions and it is not dependent upon the nature
of employment and the procedure pursuant to which the workman
has entered into service. In continuation thereof, the condition
precedent for retrenchment has been defined under Section 25F
of the Act 1947 which postulates that workman employed in any
industry who has been in continuous service for not less than
one year can be retrenched by the employer after clauses (a) and
(b) of Section 25F have been complied with and both the clauses
(a) and (b) of Section 25F have been held by this Court to be
mandatory and its non-observance is held to be void ab initio bad
and what is being the continuous service has been defined under
Section 25B of the Act 1947. The scheme of the Act 1947
contemplates that the workman employed even as a daily wager
or in any capacity, if has worked for more than 240 days in the
preceding 12 months from the alleged date of termination and if
the employer wants to terminate the services of such a workman,
his services could be terminated after due compliance of the twin
clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F of the Act 1947 and to its
non-observance held the termination to be void ab initio bad.
[Para 20, 22 and 23][307-F-G; 308-E-G; 310-C-D]
1.2 The salient fact which has to be considered is whether
the employee who has been retrenched is a workman under
Section 2(s) and is employed in an industry defined under Section
2(j) and who has been in continuous service for more than one
year can be retrenched provided the employer complies with the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
299
twin conditions provided under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 25F
of the Act 1947 before the retrenchment is given effect to. The
nature of employment and the manner in which the workman has
been employed is no

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