Retrenchment, in its ordinary connotation is discharge of labour as surplus though the business or work itself is continued, S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom District Manager, (2003) 4 SCC 27.
Means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include--
(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or
(b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health. [Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), s. 2 (oo)]
The word 'retrenchment' has acquired no special meaning so as to include a discharge of workmen on bona fide closure of an industry. The word 'retrenchment' as defined in s. 2(oo) and the word 'retrenched' in s. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as amended by 1953 Act, have no wider meaning than the ordinary accepted connotation of those word and means the discharge of surplus labour or staff by the employer for any reason whatsoever, otherwise that as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, and do not include termination of services of all the workmen on a bona fide closure of industry or on change of ownership or management thereof, Hariprasad Shivshankar Shukla v. A.D. Divelkar, AIR 1957 SC 121 (132): (1957) SCR 121. (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s. 25FF)
If due weight is given to the words 'the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever' and if the words 'for any reason whatsoever' are understood to mean what they plainly say it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the expression 'retrenchment' must include every termination of the service of a work-man by an act of the employer. The underlying assumption, of course, is that the undertaking is running as an undertaking and the employer continues, as an employer but where either on account of transfer of the undertaking or on account of the closure of the undertaking the basic assumption disappears, there can be no question of 'retrenchment' within the meaning of the definition contained in s. 2(oo). This came to be realised as a result of the decision of this Court in Hariprasad case (1957 SCR 121:, AIR 1957 SC 121: 1957 SCJ 83). The Parliament then stepped in and introduced ss. 25FF and 25FFF by providing that compensation shall be payable to workmen in case of transfer of undertaking or closure of undertaking as if the workmen had been retrenched. The termination of the service of a workman on the transfer or closure of an undertaking was treated by Parliament as 'deemed retrenchment'. The effect was that every case of termination of service by act of employer even if such termination was a consequence of transfer or closure of the undertaking was to be treated as 'retrenchment' for the purposes of notice, compensation etc. Whatever doubts might have existed before Parliament enactment s. 25FF and 25-FFF about the width of s. 25F there cannot be any doubt that the expression 'termination of service' for any reason whatsoever' now covers every kind of termination of service except those not expressly included in s. 25F or not expressly provided for by other provisions of the Act such as ss. 25FF and 25FFF, Santosh Gupta v. State Bank of Patiala, AIR 1980 SC 1219: (1980) 3 SCC 340: (1980) SCR 884.
Termination of service for unauthorised absence from duty in this case would be 'retrenchment' within the meaning of s. 2(oo) and so the pre-conditions to a valid retrenchment set out in s. 25F must be satisfied. L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, AIR 1982 SC 854: (1982) 1 SCC 645: (1982) 3 SCR 298.
The definition of 'retrenchment' in s. 2(oo) of the Act means termination by the employer of the service of a workman as surplus labour for any reason whatsoever, or it means termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punish-ment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, and those expressly excluded by the definition, Punjab Land Development & Reclamation Corpn. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, (1990) 3 SCC 682: (1990) 3 SCR 111.
View Judgments Citing this Phrase View Acts Citing this Phrase