Industrial Dispute and Retrenchment: Supreme Court Dismisses Casual Labourer’s Appeal

The case of Mohd. Ali vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others revolves around a dispute concerning the retrenchment of a casual labourer in the Agriculture Seed Multiplication Farm, Bhagni, Himachal Pradesh. The key issue before the Supreme Court was whether the appellant was entitled to the protection of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, based on his length of service.

The appellant, Mohd. Ali, claimed that he had worked for over 240 days in multiple years and was entitled to reinstatement. However, the respondents argued that he had abandoned his job voluntarily and did not meet the required conditions for retrenchment protection. The case had gone through the Industrial Tribunal, the High Court, and ultimately the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

The appellant worked as a casual labourer under various government work schemes between 1980 and 1991. His employment history showed that he had completed 240 days in some years but had worked less in others, particularly in the year preceding his retrenchment.

After a long gap, in 2005, the appellant sought reinstatement by approaching the State Government, which referred the matter to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled in his favor, ordering reinstatement without back wages. The State Government challenged this order before the High Court, which set aside the Tribunal’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments (Mohd. Ali)

The appellant contended that:

• His termination was in violation of Sections 25F and 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act.
• Once he had completed 240 days in a calendar year, he became entitled to retrenchment benefits.
• The High Court misinterpreted the Industrial Disputes Act by requiring continuous service in the 12 months preceding termination.

Respondents’ Arguments (State of Himachal Pradesh)

The State argued that:

• The appellant had abandoned his job voluntarily and was not retrenched.
• He had approached the government after a delay of 12 years, which was unjustified.
• In the year before his disengagement, he had worked only 19.5 days, far below the required 240 days.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the case in light of the Industrial Disputes Act and past precedents, particularly Surendra Kumar Verma vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Mohan Lal vs. Bharat Electronics Limited. The Court noted:

• The purpose of the Industrial Disputes Act is to protect workers from arbitrary retrenchment.
• A worker must have worked for at least 240 days in the 12 months preceding termination to claim protection under Section 25F.
• While the appellant had completed 240 days in earlier years, he did not meet this requirement in the year before his termination.
• The appellant’s long delay in filing the case also weakened his claim.

Key Observations by the Court

The Supreme Court ruled:

“The provisions are very clear that in order to invoke the protection of Section 25F, the workman must have worked for 240 days in the 12 months preceding the date of retrenchment.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. It stated:

“The appellant worked only for 195 days in 1990 and 19.5 days in 1991, which is below the required 240 days of working in the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of dismissal. Therefore, he is not entitled to take the benefits of Section 25F.”

Conclusion

This judgment reaffirms the importance of fulfilling statutory conditions for retrenchment protection under the Industrial Disputes Act. It also highlights the necessity of timely legal action in employment disputes.

Petitioner Name: Mohd. Ali.
Respondent Name: State of Himachal Pradesh & Others.
Judgment By: Justice R.K. Agrawal, Justice S. Abdul Nazeer.
Place Of Incident: Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 16-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Mohd. Ali vs State of Himachal Pr Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 16-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by R K Agrawal
See all petitions in Judgment by S. Abdul Nazeer
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category