LexM/S. SCOOTERS INDIA LTD. versus M. MOHAMMAD Y AQUB AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.. - M/S. SCOOTERS INDIA LTD. A v. M. MOHAMMAD Y AQUB AND ANR. NOVEMBER 21, 2000 (S. RA.IENDRA BABL: AND S.N. \!ARIA VA, JJ.] B Labour Laws: Industrial Dispute-Retrenchment ·Workman's name removed from the roll of the company under standing order and was not a//owed to join his C duty-Held, this amounted to retrenchment-Further, such standing order canr:ot be used for termination of services without fo//owing the provisions of law regarding retrenchment- - Principles of Natural Justice-Administrative Law. Respondent's name was removed from the roll of the company under D the standing order. An industrial dispute was raised. Labour Court held that there was retrenchment and directed reinstatement of the respondent with continuity of service and full back wages. The award was challenged by the appellant. High Court dismissed the petition. Hence, this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : I. I. There cannot be any automatic termination of the workmen on the basis of standing order. Principles of natural justice has to be complied with. As the workman was not allowed to join duty, standing order could not have been used for terminating his services. More so the requisite material and evidence shows that there was retrenchment without following the provisions of law, Thus, the termination was illegal. 15-C-FI Scooter India & Ors. v. Vijai E. V. Eldred 1199816 SCC 549, affirmed. E F to. C/Jtrun India Ltd v. Shammi Bhan & Anr. 1199816SCC538, referred G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1471 of 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.5.98 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 5666 of 1984. H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Manoj Swarup, Ms. Lalita Kohli, Miland Kumar and Ms. Maulina Swarup for the ~ppellant. M.A. Chinnasamy and K.C. Sudarshan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B S.N. V ARIA VA, J. This Appeal is against an Order dated 13th May, 1998 by which the writ petition filed by the Appellant has been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts are as follows: The I st Respondent was appointed as unskilled workman w.e.f. 9th September, 1974 and was then promoted to the post of a semi-skilled worker C w.e.f. 7th June, 1975. D On I st August, 1976 the Respondent's name was removed from the roll of the Company under Standing Order 9.3.12. The said Standing Order reads as follows : "9.3.12 Any workman who remains absent from duty without leave in excess of the period of leave originally sanctioned or subsequently extended for more than I 0 consecutive days, he shall be deemed to have left the services of the Company of his own accord, without notice, thereby terminating his contract of service with the Company and his name will, accordingly, be struck off the E rolls." The Respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication to the Labour Court, Lucknow. By an Award dated 20th July, 1984, the Labour Court held that there was retrenchment. The Labour Court held that as the provisions of law, regarding F retrenchment, had not been followed the termination was illegal. The Labour Court directed reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. The Appellant filed the Writ Petition challenging the Award. The Writ Petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 13th May, 1998. G Mr. Swarup submitted that there was no retrenchment. He submitted that the Respondent had been suspended from 28th June, 1976 to 7th July, 1976 and was to join duty after 7th July, 1976. He submitted that the Respondent did not join duty. He submitted that the Respondent was personally advised by the Chief Personnel Officer of the Company to join his duty on 23rd July, 1976, failing which his name would be removed from the roll. Mr. Swarup H submitted that the Chief Personnel Officer of the Company wrote a letter - SCOOTERS INDIA LTD. v. M. MOHAMMAD YAQUB [YARIAVA, J.] 3 dated 24th July, 1976, calling upon the Respondent to join duties latest by A 30th July, 1976, failing which his name would be removed from the rolls of the company. He submitted that the Respondent still failed to join duty. He submitted that under these circumstances the Appellant is entitled to remove the name of the Respondent from the roll of the company under the above mentioned Standing Order. He submitted that such removal does not amount B to retrenchment. He relied upon the judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.