INDIA IND.
Supreme Court o f India
D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
(Before Kuldip Singh, V. Ramaswamy and K. Ramaswamy JJ.)
In Civil Appeal No. 166 (NL) of 1983
Termination o f employment o f a workman - f a i l u r e
to return after expiry o f leave
HEADNOTES
Facts
Clause 13(2)(iv) of the certified Standing Orders permits the employer to strike off
from the muster rolls the name of a worker who has not returned within eight calen-
dar days from the expiry of his leave originally granted or subsequently extended as
the case may be. If he does not explain to the satisfaction of the management the
reasons for his absence or his inability to return on the expiry of the leave, such a
worker would be deemed to have automatically abandoned his service and lost his
lien on his appointment.
The Labour Court in this case upheld the contention of the management that the
worker had automatically abandoned his service in terms of the said Standing Order.
An Appeal was filed on behalf of the worker to the Supreme Court by special leave
against the award.
The issues that arose for consideration in this case were:
(i) would such an abandonment "amount to retrenchment" under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947;
(ii) if so, would the worker's services be deemed to have been terminated without
the necessity of complying with the prescribed mandatory pre-conditions under
Section 25-F of the Act;
(iii) would such termination also have to conform to the principles of natural justice
implicit in Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution?
Decision
The Court held that it is a fundamental rule of law that no decision should be taken
which will affect the right of any person without that person first being informed of
the details of the case and given an opportunity to state his defence. It is also a well-
settled principle of law that the procedure prescribed for depriving a person of his
livelihood must meet the challenge of Article 14.
Article 21 guarantees the right to life which includes a right to livelihood; any
deprivation thereof must be in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law which
conforms to Articles 14 and 2 1, so as to be just, fair and reasonable and not fanciful
or oppressive.
The answer to the three questions, therefore, was that the so-called abandonment
of service would amount to retrenchment, that the retrenchment cannot be effected
without complying with the prescribed pre-conditions and that the procedure should
be in conformity with the requirements of Articles 14 and 2 1.
The management did not conduct any domestic inquiry and did not give any
opportunity to the workman to state his case. In view of this, the Court gave the direc-
tions to the management to reinstate the workman forthwith and pay him 50% of the
back wages within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Court order.
The appeal was allowed accordingly, directing the parties to bear their own costs.
Law Applied
Clause 13(2)(iv) of the Standing Orders is extracted in full in paragraph 2 of the
judgment. The section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes A c t , 1947 which defines
retrenchment is extracted in paragraph 3 of the judgment.
Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act is extracted below:
Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen - No workman employed in
any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an
employer shall be retrenched by that employer until:
(a) the workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the rea-
sons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired, or the workman has
been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period of the notice;
(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which
shall be equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of
continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months; and
(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or
such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notifica-
tion in the Official Gazette.
Article 14 of the Constitution:
Eguality before law-The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law
or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Article 21 of the Constitution:-
Protection of life and personal liberty - No person shall be deprived of his life or
personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Court was delivered by K Ramasway, J. This appeal by special
leave is against the award of the Labour Court, Haryana at Faridabad dated 19April
1982 which was published in the State Gazette on 10 August 1982. It upheld the
termination of the appellant's service as legal and valid. The respondent, by its letter
