0% found this document useful (0 votes)
141 views10 pagesDelhi Law Review BT Kaul Sir. Cropped
Industrial Disputes and Retrenchment
Uploaded by
qubrex1Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
141 views10 pagesDelhi Law Review BT Kaul Sir. Cropped
Industrial Disputes and Retrenchment
Uploaded by
qubrex1Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
/ 10
Mo DELHI LAW REVIEW vou.12
‘These activities pose abig threat tothe lives the citizensof the Urited States. The
citizens ofthe United States suffered huge injuries and deaths asa result of drug
addiction. The alleged acts were commited in Panama but they effected citizens
jin the United States. Therefore, the alleged acis of Noriega are deemed to be
committed in the United States. Obviously, the drug taflcking activites of
Noriega fat within te sphere of jurgestonis rater than jus peri,’ These
activities sre commercial in nature because the primary motivating force behind
these activities was money. Money attracted Noriega to drug traficking. This is
‘evidenced by the fact that Noreigakeptat east 10 million dollars inEropean bank
‘nd supplemented his 60,000 dollar annual salary wit interests in casinos, liquor
"ores news media outlets and banks. An X-ray of Noriega’ history reveals his
tremendass love for money and luxury. Thus, the rtous, riminsl and commer
ial activites of Noriega which are deemed 1 be commited inthe United States
have caused huge injuries tothe citizens of United States. The til of deposed
Panamian dictator Noriega in the United States, therefore, als ouside te barr
of sovere.gn immunity when teste onthe touchstone of the practice of states and
‘emegingitemational law.
+ Rents, Low Cente Fey of Law, Unive of ati abi
LAW OF RETRENCHMENT IN INDIA.
1 THE POLICY UNDERLYING RETRENCHMENT LAW
‘THE INDUSTRIAL Dispotes Act, 1947 is & pce of legislation, primarily con-
«cemed with providing, mderhé aegis te state, machinery for investigation and
settlement of industrial disputes but the collecive bargaining as a mode of
‘elemento industrial disputes is conspicuous by is absence, The Actas it stood
‘pio October, 1953,hadno provision forthe paymentof lay-off of etrenchment’
«compensation tothe workmen who wer laid off or erenched incertinconingen-
cies. Thongh some progressive employers used to pay, and industrial tribunals,
‘when disputes were refered 1 them, used 1 award such compensation, et the
situation was far from satisfactory. Inthe cbsence of any norms lid down by the
Jaw, adjudioetrs had to take various factors into consideration in awarding
compensation and in determining its quantum. The resulting adjutiation vas,
therefore, nether certain nor uniform,
‘The need for statutory provision hecame particulary obvious in 1953
hea, a a result of accumulated stocks in the textile industry, texte mills were
trestened with te consequences of elosureof one of more shifts enailing lay-off
‘rreenchiment af «large number of workers employed in that industry. in oder,
therefore, to avoid industial unestin the counay, the President of India promul-
Jed the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Ordinance 1953 with elfect from 24
(Cetober 1953, making provision for compensation for lay-off or retrenchment,
‘eting a uniform standard for all employers. The Ordinance was replaced by the,
Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953, which came into force retrospectively”
fom 24 October 1953,
‘These provisions for lay-off oc retrenchment compensation were also
sgeatly necessitated by the coming into force ofthe Constittion of India on 26
Jannary 1950. Pact IV of the Constitution, entitled Directive Principles of State
Policy, engrafs in tthe goals and values tobe secured by the Republic of India as
welfare sate.’ Anicle 41 recognises, inter ala, every citizen's rght to work.
Article 42 enjoins the state to make provitions for securing. just and humane
conditions of work, while article 43 makes i obligatory forthe state, dner ala, to
Secure by suitable legislation or economic organisation or in anyother manner to all
workers, industrial, agricultral or ouberwise, work, a living wage, acondition of
Wworkensuring adescen standard fife and full enjoymentof lise and social and
cultural opportunites. The subject matter of aticle 46 is the protecdon of weaker
sections ofthe society, in panicular scheduled eastes and scheduled tribes, rom
secial injustice and all forms of exploitation and it enjoins the state to promote
‘ecucation and economic inerest ofthese people. Though couched introad terms,
|. Theme given a Pt Vo ie Costin eligi ss nang abet ork
rovlone eh nok hana codon ef wre ra of lvton. ing wg
ain ese stuncrotiseannjamerttcnteprsepon abu saogerear
[ble anisance ne een of wargayaen ua DELHI LAW REVIEW Vou.12
this anicle has direct relevance to industrial legislation as the wodking class
‘eneraly emanates fom thiseross-setion of the socety.2in accepting the dicctive
rincpls, the country is commited morally and ethically to soethaithe governance
of itis carried out witha view to implementing these directive principles in course
cof time.? Though these principis are not justieiablo, they ane te comestone ofthe
Jetislatonsin the Geld of welfare oft working lass Thus the unstional focus of
the indusial legislation and the soca! perspective ofthe DroctivePrineiples of
Stats Policy of the Constitution underscore the importance of tw socially vita
factors inthe understanding and application of industrial jurspeudenes i India’
‘Thefts isthe the worker, in cooperation with hisemployer tas thelegal and moral
duty tothe community ofa disciplined contribution tothe health and wealth of the
nation. The second equally axiomatic consideration isthe security of employment
asthe fire requisite of workers life. Atthe commencement of hisemployiment a
‘worker nctrallyexpeetsandlooks forward io security of service spread overa ong,
time, Capital eanaot disown is obligation in ease it destroys this hope and
‘expectation ofa worker by puting him to economic dead.
‘The constitutional values of tho right to work nd seeurtyin the even of
smnempioyment pervade the provisions of eenchment compensation. The muni
fest obje: of th provisions of retrenchment is wo so comapensae the workman for
the loss ofemployenent as to provide him the wherewithal. subsist unt he finds
feesh employment. Thus, n enacting provisions of retrenchment compensation the
{egistation provides for compensation o mitigate the suffering, alleviate the agony
and softer the biow of hardship caused by the involuntary uncmploymen forced
"upon the hapless work” especially in acoundry where social socuiy measures are
‘conspicucus by thelr absence.
1 THE GENERAL SCHEME
Section ofthe Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1953has engrafted
chapter V-A in the Indusrial Disputes Act, 1947. This chapter contains sections
25A t025), Section 25F lays down that no workman employed in an industry who
has been in continuous service for not ass han one year under an erapoyer shall
2 OP. Muon The Law of Inari Dips, vt 9.3 Gn
3. Report ite Nason Commurion ef abe 48 (1909.
‘There eacoens he nde vine Ay 986 hell Emo Sting
(iden) A 185 nde nbn Dipset 1947 pss kel aos
nda geal ic "omcoraom af the sonia eeu tge yey se ot
‘Pla couninane woe bette an en ane peor tat
at one i'r er ia Bogor Wer Supp 8 Papp, RR 9S
5. Kelyerd at Michal bi Jotnvon Pap Ld (1975) SCR 28rd "Legon and
jude teeter ave woven thse aa" jen Drs, The Supe Coot
fli A Soilege iia of aru Fchge 8€241(9T7)
& Gurren Soi, AK BBOSC 17 rine oe
‘ehh ra Sel Yee}: se to no ae Pew Thi Waren Aik SDS
1990 LAW OF RETRENCHMENT 3
be reveriched by the employer unil—
(@) the workman has boca given one month's notice in writing
Indicaing the reasons foretenchimcat and tne period of noice nas
‘expired, othe workman has been paid in lew of such nove, wages
fo the period of notice:
(@) the workman hasbeen paid, au time of retrenchment compen
‘sation whichshall beequivalentiofifeen days" average pay forevery
year of continuous service.
{© oie in prescribea manner i sorved onthe appropriate govern-
‘ment.
Tn other words, section 25F lays down conditions precedent for valid
‘retrenchment of a workman, However the Supceme Courthas held hat only clauses
(@)and (bof section 25F ure conditions precedent for effecting avalid rtrench-
‘ment Where an employer reaches his workman without complying withthe
requizements of clauses (a) and (b) of section 25F, the reenchment will be no
retrenchment in th eyes of law and the workman will be ented ote continuity
of service. The industrial adjudication has in such.casos generally granted reinstate-
ment of workers wit contnaty of service and in few cases reasonable compen
sation i iew of reinstatement.
Section 256 prescribes ts procedure fr rerenchment and gives legis
Sve recogncion othe well-weognized principle of reuenchment industrial aw,
. ‘ast come, first go’. Section 25H casts a duty on the employer who hes
‘eutenched certain workinen and subsequendy has occasion to re-employ any
person; to give opportunity io the reuenched workmen to offer themselves fo re-
‘employment. Section251 makes provisions ofehaptr V-A.(Qcaling with retrench
‘mentand lay-off override any other la, including standing orders made under the
Unduszil Employenent (Standing Orders) Act, 1946,
The Indusris Dispates Amendment) Act, 1976addod chapter V-B nthe
‘industrial Dispotes Act, 1947 for making special provisions relating to lay-off, re-
lenchment and closure in industrial establishments employing thce hundred or
more workmen on an average por working day forthe preceding twelve month.
‘These special provisions ae designed towards puting further resvctions on the
‘employers’ right to rtrench, lay of or close down an undertaking, The net effect
ofthe amending Actsof 1976 and 1982s hat section 25F appiesonly to industrial
¢stablishments employing fess than 100 workmen, Industial establishments
employing 100or more workmen are now governed by chapuar VB ofthe Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, Section 25N ofthis chapeeristhe corresponding provision for
section 25F, Under section 25N, an employer is required to give tree months!
1. Bam Union of onli. Silo omboy,(1964)1 LI 351
‘Byte fai Dispute Cmenanen) Ac 98 eon 12a one enforce
‘nade Ue he ce tent oe fl pis emsepdin chap VS hoes
‘made mpc to itn hier angopng ns hone mae Won
‘erga per wating dy fore peeing weve mots 1 DELHTLAW REVIEW vou
notice orihree months wages in llewof such ntice this workmen bute antuma
‘of compensation payable remains the same, i.e. 15 days average py for every year
‘ofcontiuousservice, Anokhersignificantchange introduced by setion 25N is that
the employer of anestablishmentemploying 300 oc more workmenhastoseekpriot
permission of te appropriate government for rexenching his workmen. Non-
‘compliance with any of the conditions laid down in section 25N renders a
‘etrenchnentbad in law andthe workmen concerned sre deemod oe incontinuos
service of the employer and are entitled wo fll wages and benefits, In addition, a
Gelinqoent employer is liable co punishment under section 25Q. There is no
provision inthe Act or any ther statute which requires an employer proposing
retrenchment of his workmen 1 consult wade unions. But, a8 sated above, 22
‘employe: employing 100 or more woskmenin isestablishmentesmnotretteneh his
‘Workers without prior permission ofthe appropriate government, Failure 0 60 so
will ender the retrenchment illegal and also make the employer liable for punish
II THE CONCEPT OF RETRENCHMENT
Retrenchment in its ordinary sense connotes discharge of. surplus
‘workforce? Workmen may become surplus due to a variety of reatons, eg.
economy, rationalisation of the industry of installation of new labour saving
‘devices. There sno doubt thatthe statue provides a dictionary forthe words used,
‘one mast]ook into that diconary firs forthe inerpreation af words used in the
Status, The statutory definition may include a meaning different from orin excess
cof the ordinary acceptance of the word which is subject to definition, Therefore, the
fist tskis to examine te language of tho defniion and to oee if the language
merely reiterates the ordinary meaning of addsfiteludes something more 19 the
‘ordinary meaning.
Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 defines ‘retrenchment
for the purposes ofthe Actin the following manner:
“Rewenchment” means the termination by the employer of the
services ofa workman for any reasor-whatsoever otherwe than as
4 punishment inflicted upon the employee by way of disciplinary
2etion, but does not include:—
‘9 voluntary retirement ofthe workman, of
9, Sa Prk Seer Mili Piprich igor Mie Matdor Uren, ABLSSISCSS Heiter
reeds iach agar Mls, the Sore Cou cre
(B] eestne concen olay eens ainsi ncotns
Sot tht spoon ese eth befor dacharged tale ta
‘eo, be ened st etenctnen Rerenchee nein ort panes
‘chro supa uot nce ichege on vee of vies,
‘Thee dterany ere tae comesion wha ee te vt ce el te
Incoreenton oe date rence nen) ee insathal pes A 47,
‘Gore cr el he qenon ais the cope he penton esha ened
190 LAW OF RETRENCHMENT. us
(©) retrementof te workman on reaching the age of superannus-
ton if the contact of employment between the employer and
the workman concerned contains stipulation in that behalf:
(20) termination ofthe services of the workman as a rest of the
non-enewal of enniract of employment between theemployer
and the workman cofcemned on its expiry, or of such contact
being werminaied under a sipalation in tht behalf contained
‘therein or
(©) termination of the services of @ workman on the round of
contiaged cheat,
‘The definition consists of four essential requirement:
(there shold he termination ofthe services of a weekman;
i) such termination should be by the employer
(Gi) such termination may be for any reason whatsoever; and
Gv)_ such termination should not be by way of punistent imposed
through disciplinary action or should not be covered by sny af the exceptions
contained in section (00)
‘A Took at the definition andthe Key words ‘for any reason whatsoever’
brings forth the fact tht she definition is wide, ‘Thus, i the definition is fooked st
laid and unhampered by precedents, one is at once struck by the remarkably
‘wide language employed, particularly by the use ofthe words “ermination,. for
any reason whatsoover" In Santosh Gupta v.StateBank of Patiala," he ain case
decided by th Supreme Courton the definition ofetzenchment, it washeld that the
{efiiton of ‘resenchment’ in section 2(00) was not confined © the ordinary
‘meaning of te term, ie, termination by the employer ofthe services of a workman
‘onaccoant of labour surplusage but embraced every kind of terminstica other thag
those specifically excloded, “The decision reached in this case is by no means
surprising. It was, in some measuce, foreshadowed by the Suateme Coort's
pronouncements in State Bank of India v.Sundra Money ® and Hindustan Steele
Lid. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Orissa? Even eforsihe decision of
thecourin the Santosh Gupia,thecomrectnessf the coun'sapproachin the Sundra
Money and the Hindustan Stee! towards the definition of retrenchrset in the Act
10. Thi cts en aed ih dod Dios Amended At 188
11, AIR |9H08C 121, Gominter ened tons Soto Gop) Te Batch eosiedot Kiger
‘nd. Reaay I. The deen bor Don flowed in Maken Lav. Manatee of Barer
Brecon, AR IOBISC 253 anh mequn css Ports prone tea,
‘enllbecanceneningenthe printer afew idSovninde SaurhGupi at Sete
Tove bs of ete i sneer
‘ARISTGSC 1171 Gee feral ow he Sunde Mon)
1K S75SC51 erator fret ous te Minar See se lo Gyre Tabet,
ete 6 whch or of ew ne our hr thew ewe pon ee
tbe ges. er and Ded ong aaj, we Kove dad Sng
Jntenen 6. DELEILAW REVIEW VoL. 12
‘came tobe questioned so much so thatthe court’s approach in these cases has been
describes “nether practical or eleological."* Te isnot suprising that writings
questioning the correctness ofthe coun's approach have increased, moreso after
the decisien in the Santosh Gupta. The approach ofthe court in fese cases Sn
{encral and inthe Santosh Gupva, in particular, has beon criticised onthe ground
thatthe Concer of labour sueplusage is impllitin the scheme ofthe Act relating 6
retrenchment and that after these decisions the application of cersin provisions ot
the Act may lead 1 absurd consequences. Anather dimension to thscontoversy
has been acded by an obsevation of Pathak Jin Surendra Kumar Verma v. Centra!
Government Industrial Tribunai-eum-Labowr Court.”
"ould notbe taken to have agreed with te interpretation ofsetion
2100) in Santosh Gupta v. Sate Bank of Patiala,"
The erties ofthe cour’ approach agree that fa lteral mesning is given
to the defvtion, every case of termination not excluded by section (00) would
agouncto renchment, Buttheirargumentis thatthe cour inthe pasthas cur down
the amplituse oft definition wo harmonise i with he seheme of te Act. Has the
‘court in thepast done so? In order to appreciate te issues of conflict arising out of
usiness
eases to exist2?
Ie fsmue that thr are some observations in he Shakin cas the same
1 the Barsi Light Railway Co. Led) which, if not properly understood with
‘eference ta the question at issue, seemingly support the view that ermination
serve *forany reason whatsoever" hasbeen held to mean nothing marae noting
ess than discharge of a labour force whichissurplusage. Theemployers, nthe aor
‘cases, havebesn elyingon these obsorvationtof the courtin theabove saedcasss,
without appreciating the context in which those observations were nade, wo sucss
lat recenchment as envisaged inthe Act connotes nothing move whan discharge
offabour suplusige. Now reference may be made to the contest in which those
‘observations were made,
Inthe Shula, the cour in its quest to find whether termitation of th
seevices of a workman because of closure or transfer of underiking was included
inthe definition of erenchment under secrion 2(60) of the Actcoafived itself ta
Kisited question as to how far the cndinary meaning of ezenchment fis in with he
anguage used in section 2(00. Is appesit to refer to observations made by the
ceaur in this connection:
{Lat ws now see how fur tat meaning (ordinary) fics in with the
language used, We have refered earlier 10 the four essential
requirements of the definiion, and the question is, does the ordinary
‘meaning af retrenchment fulfil chose requirements? In cur opinion
does. When » portion of staff or labour force is discharged as
ssurplusag in a continuing busines there ave (a) esminatio ofthe
Services of a workman; () by the employer (2) for any reason
whatsoover, and (@) ebiewise than by way oF disciplinary ation
Emphasis added)
Itisthus manifestly clear thatthe courtin the Shutlainsteadof Uetermining
{Be ambit ofthe definition in section 2(o0) was cantentofind tat rewenshineat as
defined in the Act included the ordinary meaning of reenchmeat. The tue seope
(oft term in section (00) was thus left open. The observations ofthe court oo
hic the eis of the cout base their arguments, itis submitted, have to be read
inthecontextabove-mentioned, Itisunforwmatethatthecour in theSanash Gupta
‘aleno atempr torefer tothe above-mentioned contextandlett scope for is cies
20 hal 2
2 Sura otes and 15, Arad Pas brs i gue on he bration ke oe ht
‘telogiauren sing ti xpessio Tory masonwnaagrer yea click easec
‘hy yo re dad i up he regan be dle ftnc oe ie
‘meencineat was OF. Matha ties te stgunenton he allowing cscrsins ere
‘eas tind eon 200d sein secon 26 het deca ste ey
2 hiponaelba ez, us DELHI LAW REVIEW Vou. 12
touse he Shut to butress their argument thatthe Shukla had net ben abered to
in the her set of uses starting with to Sundra Money. Iti unter submited that
the observations in the Shuédathat“exonchment as defined in section 2(00) ands
used inseetion 25F has no wider meaning than the ordinary acepted connotation
‘of word"? was with reference toe issue whesher ga the elosur o ransfer of an
undereking termination of service of workmen was rerenchment under the Act
‘tout was not sounder the ordinary meaning af the term,
sportient o mention hero that soon after the decisions af ne Supreme.
Courtinthe Shukizanda similar set ofcases.* wher itwas ruled hat recnehment
under the Act i nat ielude terminsion of services ofall werkaren ana bonafide
losureof the ndusiy or on duechange of ownershipor manayementofteindustey,
the Indstrial Dispues Ac, 1947 was amended in order to provide forthe situations
which the Supreme Court held were not covered by the orm “rovenchient inthe
‘Act Parliament, ths, stopped in and inoned sctions 25FF an 2SFFF providing
Tor paymentof compensation tho workmen into cae of “close "and eansler
of undertakings’ as if the workman bad been ceienched, ‘The eect witha the
{eeminaionoftheservicesafa workman on tietransferorcloeutesfanundenaking
was tested by Parliament as ‘gecmed retrenchment for he purpaes of noice and.
compecsation,uhough by vinwo af the Supreme Court decision’ such eases did ot
fall winin the definition of retrenchment in section 2(00) of te Act. These
amendnents became necessary and te Pastismeat had to step in because the court
Inthe Siukla had misconceivedte inten ofthe logiskturo in eoeting section 25F,
‘ausingconsiderable hardship to workmen by denying retrenchment compensation
to those whose services were terminated on account of elosue or transfer of an
tundessking, which defeated the purpose underlying the imporant provision ef
rerenchmeni compensation
Ican thus, be seen that inthe Shukla and ther cases he Court was ot
dretly asked to pronounce on the scope of reenchment beyond whether the
ordinary meaning ofthe tem was included i sceion 200). The question of true
scope ef the expression ‘retrenchment’ in section 2(00) was lot open. Suck an
‘opportnity presened itself unly in the subsequent cases starting with the Sunda
‘Money. In dhe Sundra Money, te court considered the question wher he
provisien relating to retenchinent compensation, namely section 25F-of the
Industrial Disputes Aci, 1947 wasateactedtoacase where teexerofappoinument
‘carried nautomaticcessation of work, the period of employment working itself ont
byetfiucof time, notby ative steps onthe partof ihe employer. Would such case
sill be covered by the definition of retrenchment undér the Act? The court had 10
_answerthis ise in tho absence of u statutory definition o"temminaion of service”.
‘To thes questions, the answer of the court was:
“Termination embraces not merely the act of terminaion by the
employer, but the fact of termination, howsoever produced... Aa
Bi. Spr nate
90 LAW OF RETRENCHMENT us
employer terminates employment notmerely by passing anorder as
the service runs. He can do 0 by writing composite oder, one
giving employment, and the ther ending or ming i. A separate,
subsequent dotcrminatio isnot the sole mageesi pull of te provi-
sion. pre-emptive provision to erminate struck by theme vice
ss the post-appoinaiént termination. Dexterity of diction cannot
defeat the articlated conseicnes of the provision,
Further, the coun peoesoded withthe definition of “retrenchment” i the
‘Act The court stated:
{A break-down of See. (00) unsistakably expands the segues
retrenchment “Termination... for any reason whatsoever’ ave the
key words. Whatever te reason, every trmination spells ize
‘Acconting to the court, section 2(o9) was the master of he situation and
the eourtcould not runcsteits amplitude." Tefunhor added that warts mule
import had to be winnoweu judicially. suit tho social philosophy af He statute,
the social philosophy being io protect the weak against the stzong® Thus, wo
ropesitions of law emerge from the Sundra Money case, namely, () tht
termination unde secon (09) was rot confined tocases where anerployer by is
‘otive step terminated whe service by pasing un order as the service ran but
‘exminaton could result even on an automatic cessation of service, the period of
‘employment working itself our by efflux of ime, not by active stepon the pact of
‘teemployer and (i termination forany reason whatsoever (notconfined to fabour
soxplasage) was also reuenchment. So far asthe Fis popoiton off nid dow
by the Sundra Money is concerned, it has already been unuled by Parliament
{trough the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1984, This amesdmnent aided
louse (bb) in the ist of exceptions io section 2(09),thustaking aut eases olhervse
rough within the ambit of termination by the Sunda Money, The-eoro, wo what”
extent, the Sundra Money sland overuled.Ieissubmited tha this reteograde
step and is a clear case where Parliament has succumbed (0 the employers’
essures. On the question of the seope of “any reason whatsoever, the Sundra
‘Honey is good law and to that extent propasition nunibee (i) formulated above is,
oven today, corec statement of Iw notwithstanding the 1984 amendment.”
‘The matter of definition of retrenchment again came up before the owt
inthe Hindustan Stee. The question was whether Lerminationofsrvic by eax
‘of time was termination of service within sseon 2(00) ofthe Act. The employer
‘ete frankly admitted that this caso was coverod bythe decision of he cour in the
Sundra Money. The employer, however, submitted thatthe Sundra Honey, which
‘was decided by three judges, wasin apparent conflict withan eater decision of the
3. Sara ete 2 18S
ioiterie, 180 DELMI LAW REVIEW vou 12
our inthe Shukla, which was decided by a Bench of five judges, and that dhe
Sundra Money, therefore, requiredseconsideration. A Bench of thes judges ot the
court, consisting of Chandrachud, Goswami and Gupta J bela, andrighly so, iat
Bere was nothing inthe Shukla whicls was inconsistent with thedocsion fn the
Surdra Honey, 1simexpreted the Shuklaas deciding nly this pointe orination
(of services ofl! workmen on the elosure ofan undestaking would not amu Wo
retrenchment. The cour fully endorsed the findings aeivedatinthSundea Money.
and furor observed tt on te facis before it wo give effet to Une words “for any
Feason whatsoever’ would be consistent with th scape and purpose of section 25F
Dfthe Actand not contrary othe scheme ofthe Act. Thus, in hiscas, 00th court
‘ctated te two propositions of Iw lad down in the Sundra Money. However, the
fist proposition, that “termination” under section 2(00) includes ermination by
cfu of me, has now been annulled bythe 1984 amendment and, therefore, ike
‘the Sundra Money, this case to0 stands io that extent overruled. Buon the second
proposition that retrenchment was not confined to labour surplusage oly, this case
like the Sundra Money continuss to hold field, With regard wo proposition (i)
formulates above, iis submited thot ts fallacious to eontnd tht the Sunda’
Money bud ovestuled the Sula * and thatthe cour had gone "beyond credible
limits" The fact is that in the Sundra Money the quest theeugh ‘judicial
‘avigalion’ for discovering the areas unexplored by the Shulla began. Therefore,
‘te questinn of either overruling the Shula or going beyond credible limits Gd not
arise. The Shukla, itmay be recalled, only lad down tat te ordinary meaning of
tho te ‘etenchiment” was includ inthe delinition of section 2(00) ofthe Ack.
‘This poston had not been contradicted but had rather been sealfiemed bythe cases
starting withthe Sundra Money. What the Sundra Monay and ihe Hlindasian Stee!
hint tis thatthe orinary concep is note ony form of retrenchment incorporated
in the Act but covered cases beyond it because of the key words or any reason
whatsoever" used therein and, in appropriato case, tho cout would! take its
‘observatics in ese cases other logical conclusion, The Gujrat See!™ andthe
Santosh Gupsa™ provided such opportunities,
nthe Gujrat Stet, te question of the seopo of relrenchiment” was nl he
‘ore question before the cour. The core question was whether discharge of the
‘workmen was punitive in nature and, therfore, Hale 10 be voided eventhough
