Termination Without Section 25-F Compliance Is Illegal Retrenchment: Orissa High Court Directs Compensation In Service Dispute After Superannuation
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice K.R. Mohapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho held that the workman’s disengagement amounted to illegal retrenchment, as the conditions prescribed under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act had not been followed. The dispute concerned the cessation of employment of a daily-wage worker, which the management claimed was due to abandonment of service, while the worker asserted it was a refusal of employment amounting to termination. Concluding that reinstatement was not feasible because the worker had already reached the age of superannuation, the Court directed the management to grant enhanced monetary compensation in place of reinstatement and back wages, thereby modifying the Tribunal’s earlier award.
The workman, Kanhu Charan Sahoo, was engaged on a daily-wage basis under the Management of Utkal University. His initial engagement order dated 11 March 1987 directed him to work at Hostel No.3 from 5 November 1987. The University alleged that he “abandoned his job w.e.f. 9th January, 1991,” whereas the workman asserted that he was “terminated from service w.e.f. 9 January 1991 without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.”
The workman relied on various office orders, a seniority list showing his name at Serial No.114, and RTI information (Ext.6). The Management contended that he was not appointed by the University but by a Security Officer deputed from the State Government and that no termination order was issued by the University. It further claimed unauthorized abandonment and argued that compliance with Section 25F did not arise.
A conciliation proceeding initiated in 2017 ended in failure, leading to a reference before the Industrial Tribunal on whether the cessation of employment amounted to illegal termination. The Tribunal framed four issues relating to maintainability, abandonment, legality of termination, and relief. Evidence was led by both sides, including the Registrar’s testimony and the 1991 Recruitment Rules.
The Tribunal held that the case was maintainable, that the workman had not abandoned service, and that refusal of employment amounted to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Act. It found non-compliance with Section 25F, declaring the termination “neither legal nor justified,” and awarded lump-sum compensation of ₹50,000 instead of reinstatement or back wages.
Both parties filed writ petitions challenging the award: the workman seeking enhancement of relief and the Management seeking to set aside the award on grounds including delay and denial of abandonment.
The Court recorded that the Tribunal had “scrutinizing the evidence on record came to a categorical conclusion that the Workman was engaged by the Management of Utkal University on daily wage basis.” It noted that Ext.5 “prepared by the Management… shows that the Workman was at Serial No.114,” and held that “it cannot be said that the Workman was not engaged by the Management–Utkal University.”
The Bench observed that Utkal University “can no doubt be termed as an industry within the meaning of Section 2(j)” and that the workman, as a daily-rated employee, “comes within the meaning of Section 2(s).” It recorded the Tribunal’s conclusion that the cessation of employment “amounts to retrenchment as defined under Section 2(oo).”
On the scope of interference, the Court cited Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, stating that “findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings.” It further quoted that a writ lies only for errors of jurisdiction and not for “an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be.” It stated that adequacy or sufficiency of evidence “are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal.”
Accordingly, the Court held that the Tribunal’s factual conclusions could not be re-assessed: “this Court is not competent to record a finding by re-appreciation of evidence.” It rejected the Management’s argument regarding abandonment, noting that the Tribunal’s finding was based on evidence.
The Court further observed that “provision under Section 25-F… was not complied with,” and therefore the termination “was neither legal nor justified.” It noted that ordinarily reinstatement with back wages would follow, but compensation had been awarded instead. As to quantum, the Court found no wage records, and therefore considered “the minimum wages prescribed by the Government of Odisha at the relevant time and the period of service” to determine appropriate compensation.
The Court modified the Tribunal’s award by directing that “a total sum of ₹2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) towards a lump sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages will serve the interest of justice. The Management is directed to pay the same to the Workman within a period of eight weeks from today with proper acknowledgement.”
“If the compensation is not paid within the time stipulated, it will carry 6% interest per annum, which shall be calculated from the date of this judgment till the date of payment.” It concluded that “the impugned award… is modified to the aforesaid extent.” Both writ petitions were disposed of with “no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sourya Sundar Das, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sobhna Das, Advocate; Mr. Guru Prasad Mohanty, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sibanarayan Biswal, Additional Standing Counsel; Mr. Sourya Sundar Das, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sobhna Das, Advocate
Cae Title: Kanhu Charan Sahoo v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar & Anr.
Case Number: WP(C) Nos.14178 of 2020 & 5059 of 2020
Bench: Justice K.R. Mohapatra and Justice Savitri Ratho
