In this case supreme court observed that the reinstatement of terminated workmen can’t be automatic in cases of violation of retrenchment conditions under section 25F of the economic disputes act 1947.
Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha noticed in appeal that was against the High court judgement which interfered with a labour court order to the extent it awarded reinstatement of a workmen with 25 percent back wages. The appellant was relying on the judgement of Ajay pal Singh v. Haryana warehousing corporation and state of Uttarakhand and another v. Raj Kumar in which court noticed that in Ajay pal Singh the termination is affected of service of daily wager compliance of section 25 F.
Further the court noticed that the service of appellant was terminated, violating the important provisions of section 25 F of the act. In which court said reinstatement can’t be automatic and therefore the transgression of section 25F being established, and an appropriate compensation is acceptable remedy and said rupees 25000 to three .25 lakhs as compensation to be given. Section 25F says no workmen employed in any industry who is functioning for not but one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until the man has been given one month notice.
In my opinion it is good that top court proceeded with compensation for the loss that has been done by the time workman was unemployed.
Faculty of law, Galgotias university