L. ROBERT D'SOUZA versus THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SOUTHERN RAILWAY & ANR.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 251 · Decided: 16-02-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
::-,>-···. 
L. ROBERT D'SOUZA 
v. 
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER SOUTHERN 
RAILWAY & ANR . 
February 16, 1982 
(D.A. DESAI AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.] 
251 
Industrial Disputes Act, 19471 sections 2(oo) and 25F, scope of-"Terml-
nation of se~vice for any reason whatsoever'' in the definition "retrench.ient"· 
darified. 
Construction of Section_ 9A-Casuaf labour, termination of services Qf-
Railway Establishme1u Code, Rules 2501 and 2505, explained. 
The appellant joined service as a gangm1-n in Southern Railway on July 
1, 1948. In course of his service be was transferred to varioui places. While 
A 
8 
G 
he wa:s working as a Lascar at Ernakulam, he was transferred, some time in 
D 
March 1970 by way of punishment for his Union activities in the capacity of 
_General Secretary of the Southern Railway Construction Workers Union, 
Eroakulam, to Podannur in Tamil Nadu. However, bis transfer was cancelled 
and he joined duty on· 20-2-1971 at Ernakulam. The Ministry of Labour, 
Government of India, by its letter dated April 23, 1974 directed treatment of his 
entire period of absence from 8tb March, 1970 to 19th February, 1971 as duty. 
Later, the appellant approached the Labour Court for recovering some of his dues 
ll 
which remained pending fo[ a long time. 
As the appellctnt and thoie similarly 
situated were likely to reach the age of superannuation and by the unfair labour 
practice, namely, treating them only as 'daily rated labour', of the Railway 
Administration, they were likely 
~o be denied the full retirement benefits, 
appellant and several others filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala, 
praying for a direction that they should be treated at least as temporary railway 
servant with attendant benefits. During the pendency of the matter, in connec-
tion, with the demand for a 11 the benefits granted by the Central Pay Commission 
being extended to the category of employees t-0 which the appellant belonged the 
appellant undertook a fast. but-broke the rsame on September 28, 1974 at the 
intervention of [the Assistant Labour Commissioner. Taking advantage of the 
appellant's absence, the .respondents termina.ted his service with retrospective 
effect, i.e., from 18~9-1974 on the gronnd of unauthorised absence. A learned 
single Judge having dismissed the liame, the Jmatter was taken. in appeal before 
the Division Bench. 
In the appe1l, it was coaten,ded that the terminatioti of 
service of the appellant in the circumstances wo.uld constitute retrenchment 
within the meaning. of section 2SF of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, 
therefore:, the order ()f termination was invalid. , The matter was referred to the 
Full Bench which held that there ,was no retrencbme0t and cjismi$$ed the appeal: 
Hence, the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Gou.rt, 
F 
G 
H 
A 
I! 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1982) 3 s.CR. 
HELD : 1. The expression "termination of service for any reason 
whatsoever" in the definition "retrenchm~nt" in section 2(oo) of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 covers every kind of termination of service except those not 
expressly included in section 25F or not expressly provided ior by other pro· 
visions of the Act such as sections 25FF and 25FFF. The excepted categories 
are (i) termination by way ·-or punishment inflicted pursuant to disciplinary 
action; (ii) voluntary retirement of the workman; (iii) retirement of the workman 
on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of emplo}·ment between 
the employer and the workman concerned contains a _-stipulation in that behalf; 
(iv) or termination of the services on the ground of continued ill·health. _ Once the 
case does npt fall in any of the excepted categories, the termination of service 
even if it be according to automatic discharge from service under agreement 
would nonetheless be retrenchment within the meaning of ·expression in -section 
2(oo) of the Act. It must as a corollary follow that if the name of the 
workman is struck off the roll, that itself would constitute retrenchment. -
[259 B-C, 206 H, 261 A-B] 
. Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Shambhu Nath Mukherji, [1978] I 
1,_
SCR 591, followed •. 
State Bank of India v. N. Sundera Money, [1976] 3 S.C. R. 160; Hindustan 
Steel Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 586; Santosh Gupta 
v, State Bank of Patia/a, [1980] 2 S.C.R 884 at 892; Mohan Lal v. Bharat 
Electronics Ltd., [1981] 3 S.C.C. 225, referred to. 
1:2. There i

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