MOHAN LAL versus MANAGEMENT OF M/S BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD.

Citation: [1981] 3 S.C.R. 518 · Decided: 21-04-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
518 
MOHAN LAL 
v. 
MANAGEMENT OF 
M/S BHARAT ELECTRONICS LTD. 
April 21, 1981 
[ A. C. GUPTA AND D.A. DESAI, JJ. ] 
Retrenchment-Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act-Whether termi-
nation of the services of a workman who has put in 240 working days within a period 
of one year amounts ro retrenchment and whether for non-compliance with the pro-
visions of section 25F the termination of service is ab initio void-Sections 25A and 
25B, scope of-Effect of terminqtion of service which is ab initio void and inopera-
tive, explained. 
The appellant was employed with the respondent as Salesman at its Delhi 
Sales Depot on a salary of Rs. 520/- per month from 8th December, J 973. His 
service was abruptly terminated by letter dated 12th October, 1974 with effect 
from 19th October, 1974.· Consequent upon his termination, an industrial dis-
pute was raised and referred to the Labour Court, Delhi, on 24th April, 1976. 
The Labour Court, on evaluation of evidence both oral and documentary, held 
that the termination of the service was in accordance with the standing orders 
justifying the removal of the employee on unsuccessful probation during the ini-
tial or extended period of probation and, therefore, .the termination would not 
constitute retrenchment within the meaning of section 2(oo) read with section 25 F 
of the Industrial Dispute Act. The Labour Court accordingly held that the ter-
mination was neither illegal nor improper nor unjustified and the claim of the 
appellant was negatived. Hence the appeal by special leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The termination of service of the appellant was ab initio void 
and inoperative. His case not being covered by any of the excepted or excluded 
categories referred to under section 2(oo) and he has rendered continuous service 
for one year, the termination of his service would constitute retrenchment. The 
pre-condition for a valid retrenchment has not been satisfied in this case and 
therefore he will be entitled to all benefits including back wages etc. 
G 
(534F G, 535-C-D) 
2. Where the termination is illegal especially where th~re is an ineffective 
order of retrenchment, there is neither termination nor cessation of service and a 
declaration follows that the workmen concerned continues to be in service with 
all consequential benefits. It is no doubt true that the Supreme Court had held 
H 
that before granting reinstatement the court must weigh all the facts and exercise 
discretion properly whether to grant reinstatement or to award compesantion. 
r 
MOHANLAL V. BHARAT ELECTRONICS 
519 
Here, no case has been made out for departure from the normally accepted 
A 
approach of the courts in the field of social justice: (535A C) 
Ruby General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chopra (P.P.), (1970) 2 Labour Law 
Journal, 63 and Hindustan Steel Ltd., Rourke/av. A.K. Roy and Others, [1970] 3 
S.C.R. 343, referred to. 
3:1. 
Niceties and semantics apart, termination by the employer of the 
B 
service of a workman for any reason whatsoever in section 2(oo) of the Industrial 
Dispute Act, would constitute retrenchment except in cases excepted in the sec-
tion itself. The excepted or excluded cases are where termination is by way of 
punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, voluntary retirement of the 
workman, retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if 
the contract of employment betw~en the employer and the workman concerned 
contains a stipulation in that behalf, and termination of the service of a workman 
C 
on the ground of continued illhealth. (524 E-F) 
3:2. It was not open to the Labour Court to record a finding that the 
service of the appellant was terminated during the period of probation on account 
of his unsatisfactory work which did not improve in spite of repeated warnings 
when there was not even a whisper of any period of probation in the appointment 
order or in the rules. The termination of service being, for a reason other than 
the excepted category, it would indisputably be retrenchment within .the meaning 
of section 2(oo) of the Industrial Dispute Act. (523 G-H, 524A, 525Z) 
Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pipraich Sugar Mills Mazdoor Union, [1956] 
S.C.R. 172; Hariprasad Shivshankar :Jhukla v, A. D. Divikar, [1957] S.C.R. 121; 
State of Bombay and Ors. v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha and Ors. [1960] 2 
D 
S.C.R. 866 at 872; State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money, [1976] 3 S.C.R. 
E 
160; Hin

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