PRAMOD JHA AND OTHERS versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 512 · Decided: 03-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
PRAMOD JHA AND OTHERS 
V. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS 
MARCH 3, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.]. 
Industrial Disputes Act, 194.7: 
Section 25F-Daily wage workers challenging retrenchment on the 
C ground of non-compliance of section 25F clauses (a) and (b)-Justification 
of-Held: Workmen having been given one month's notice in writing indicating 
reasons and compensation as required by Section 25F in the form of banker's 
cheque, the retrenchment is justified 
D 
Section 25N-App/icabi/ity of-Held, in the instant case, SP..ction 25N 
not applicable since in th~ industrial establishment less than 100 workmen are 
employed, on an average. 
Practice and Procedure : · 
E 
Plea-Maintainability of-Jn the absence of requisite pleadings and 
documents plea not maintainable. 
Appellants were project/scheme employees engaged on daily wage 
basis. Authorities issued one month notice proposing termination of their 
services under section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved · 
F appellants challenged the validity of notices. High Court passed an interim 
order protecting their employment and maintaining status quo. 
Subsequently authorities issued another notice informing the workers that 
their services were terminated due to discontinuance of new schemes and 
that the amount due and payable to them was available in the Divisional 
Office by way of banker's cheque. Hence the present appeals. 
G 
Appellants contended that the retrenchment of the ap11ellants suffers 
from serious infi:-mities as tht notice is not accompanied lily the amount 
of requisite compensatio.n, and the amount of compensation has not been 
paid or tendered to the workmen since asking the work111en to come to 
H the Divisional Office for collecting the amount of compensation cannot be 
512 
. 
.. 
, ..
, 
" 
PRAM OD JHA v. ST A TE 
Sl3 
said to be compliance of clause (b ). 
State Government contended that the communications made and the 
steps taken by it fully and strictly satisfied the requirements of Section 
25F and no fault could be found therewith. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The underlying object of &ection 25F of the Industrial 
Disputes Act, 1947 is two-fold. Firstly, a retrenched employee must have 
A 
B 
one month's time available at his disposal to search for alternate 
employment, and so, either he should be given one month's notice of the 
proposed termination or he should be paid wages for the notice period. C 
Secondly, the workman must be paid retrenchment compensation at the 
time of retrenchment, or before, so that once having been retrenched there 
should be no need for him to go to his employer demanding retrenchment 
compensation and the compensation so paid is not only a reward earned 
for his previous services rendered to the employer but is also a sustenance D 
to the worker for the period which may be spent in searching for another 
employment. Section 25F nowhere speaks of the retrenchment 
compensation being paid or tendered to the worker along with one month's 
notice; on the contrary clause (b) expressly provides for the payment of 
compensation being made at the time of retrenchment and by implication 
it would be permissible to pay the same before retrenchment. Payment of E 
tender of compensation after the time when the retrenchment has taken 
effect would vitiate the retrenchment and non-compliance with the 
mandatory provision which has a beneficial purpose and a public policy 
behind would result in nullifying the retrenchment. [519-B-C-D) 
F 
1.2. In the instant case, workmen have been given one month's notice 
in writing. The reasons for retrenchment have been indicated. An 
opportunity of hearing against the proposed termination was also afforded 
though not required by Section 25F. Retrenchment was to take effect on 
expiry of one month from the date of the notice. Compensation as required 
by Section 25F was available in the form of banker's cheque for payment G 
to the workers simultaneously with the time of retrenchment and they were 
given intimation in advance in that regard. The workers had already 
approached the High Court and secured an interim order protecting their 
employment and status quo being maintained. They were obviously not 
interested in receiving the retrenchment compensation which if done may H 
514 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 2 S.C.R. 
A have had the effect of frustrating the interim order protecting their 
employment. Therefore the retrenchm

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