Case Law Details
MSL Group India & Anr. Vs Eknath Narayan Shelar (Bombay High Court)
Re-structuring of the organisation or resizing of the labour force does not give liberty to an employer to dispense with the services of all the employees and recruit fresh hands in their place – Bombay High Court
It is an admitted position that the entire strength of 15 office assistants were terminated, including the respondent/complainant. This practically amounts to causing a closure of the establishment. If new workers are to be engaged, such closure has to be lifted. Sections 25H and 25G of the ID Act read with Rule 82 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, have to be complied with and the retrenched employees have to be offered re-employment by following their seniority.
In my view, re-structuring of the organisation or resizing of the labour force does not give liberty to an employer to dispense with the services of all the employees, the office assistants in this case and recruit fresh hands in their place. Even if they may have been retrenched, if the employer has not closed down the establishment and recruits fresh hands, the retrenched workers have a right to claim reinstatement. In view of the above, the Labour Court was right in coming to a conclusion that the termination of the respondent would be covered by Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, 1971.
The contention of the Management that the appointment order empowers it to terminate the service of an office assistant at any time, is wholly misconceived. The services of a permanent employee, who has completed 240 days in each calendar year and is entitled to the deemed status of a permanent employee in view of Standing Orders 4C and 4D of the MSO provided under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, are protected against arbitrary termination.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
