Q: I worked in a private limited company in Calcutta. I am concerned about the delay in disposal of my case under Section 10(2)(a) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Industrial Tribunal. I also filed an application for interim relief under Section 15(2)(b) of the said Act. However, the company has challenged the proceedings before the high court by taking various preliminary objections. The high court case is pending but there is no order of staying the tribunal proceedings yet. However, each time the case comes up for hearing before the tribunal, the company postpones the hearing on the ground that the High Court case is pending. How can I get relief from this?
Name withheld
A: One of the objects of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, is to ensure expeditious justice to workmen. Section 15(2)(b) provides that normally, the tribunal ought to determine the quantum of the interim relief to be paid to the workman within 60 days from the date the dispute was referred to it, after hearing the parties. Besides this statutory impetus, the courts try to ensure that matters are disposed of quickly. The attempts by employers to unnecessarily drag on industrial cases are never encouraged. The Supreme Court has observed that high courts in exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 should not stop proceedings on technical pleas and preliminary points since the employees can ill afford the wait or the expense and that the jurisdiction of these tribunals ought not to be stifled by such delaying strategies while industrial peace hangs in the balance. Since in your case, there is no order passed by the high court staying the proceedings before the tribunal, there can be no legal impediment for the expeditious disposal of your case. If the tribunal persists in granting adjournments in spite of your objections, you can consider invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of the high court to direct the tribunal to hear out the matter as soon as possible and/or within a definite time frame.
Q: I was employed in an organisation on a contract basis. My service contract was regularly renewed over the last three years. This year my employer has refused to renew the same without even assigning any reason or giving prior notice. Does this amount to wrongful retrenchment? Am I entitled to raise an industrial dispute and seek reinstatement?
Kameshwar Singh
A: Your right depends primarily on the terms, nature and purpose of your contract of service. Even though you have served continuously over 240 days and your employer seems not to have complied with the ‘conditions precedent to retrenchment’ of giving adequate notice, etc, as specified it in Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, his actions may not amount to wrongful retrenchment so as to entitle you to seek reinstatement. In service jurisprudence, retrenchment necessarily implies a termination of service, but all forms of termination do not amount to retrenchment. There are significant exceptions, such as termination through disciplinary proceedings or voluntary retirement. Clause (bb) of Section 2(oo) of the Act provides that a termination of service as a result of the “non-renewal” of the contract of employment on its expiry or on its contractually stipulated date do not amount to retrenchment. Thus, prima facie, it appears that your predicament comes within the purview of this statutory exception and it may not amount to a case of wrongful retrenchment.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
