Our Legal Correspondent

Chennai, June 11 The Madras High Court has concurred with the order of the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, that the decision of the management of a firm to terminate service of the petitioner on the ground of his post being not required for the purpose of employer’s business could not be found fault.

Also, the Court held that the main contention of the petitioner who challenged the order of the Labour Court that when he was retrenched, no compensation was offered to him on the same day could not be accepted as when the letter of retrenchment was served on him, a cheque towards compensation was also forwarded, but he refused to receive same.

The cheque was subsequently sent to him.

The Labour Court, where a dispute was raised by the petitioner, had said that on January 10, 1994 when the workman was served with letter of retrenchment along with cheque, he refused to receive same, and subsequently, the cheque was sent to him. The petitioner had contended that though the letter came to him by post, that cover did not contain the cheque, and only after his request, it was later sent to him. On this ground, the petitioner wanted the award to be set aside.

Mr Justice K. Chandru, who dismissed the petition from R. Devakumar, who was retrenched by the management of Iyyappan Engineering Industries, Ambattur, did not agree with the petitioner’s contention that no reason was given for the retrenchment. Under Rule 61 of TN Industrial Disputes Rules, read with Form ‘R’ prescribed under Section 25-F© of the Industrial Disputes Act, the employer was required to furnish reason with a copy marked to appropriate Government. The apex court had ruled that such a condition was not a condition precedent so as to nullify retrenchment itself [AIR 1964 (1) LLJ 351 (Bombay Union of Journalists vs State of Bombay].

The Judge directed the management of the firm to return the cheque to the petitioner, which was already sent to him, with necessary validation.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line