A retrenchment cannot be invalidated both for Section 25F non-compliance and absence of disciplinary proceedings.

The Seventh Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, passed an ex parte award under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, setting aside the employee’s termination, directing reinstatement with full back wages and consequential benefits, and awarding compensation and costs.

The Tribunal found the termination unlawful both for non-compliance with Section 25F and for failure to initiate disciplinary proceedings under clause 28 of the appointment letter.

The employer’s application to set aside or recall the award was dismissed; the employer then challenged both the award and the dismissal order in a writ petition.

The High Court set aside the award on its merits without deciding the validity of the order refusing recall.

Whether the ex parte award was liable to be set aside on the merits, particularly in light of the Tribunal’s findings under Section 25F and clause 28 of the appointment letter.

Whether the employer was required to comply with the remaining requirements of Section 25F, and, if so, within what time and with what interest.

Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act defines “retrenchment” to include termination for any reason, other than termination by way of disciplinary punishment, subject to the statutory exclusions.

Section 25F prescribes conditions precedent to retrenchment; the Court treated the termination as retrenchment and observed that the termination letter showed payment of one month’s notice pay, prima facie satisfying the notice requirement.

Section 2A(2) provides the basis for an individual workman’s industrial dispute concerning termination to be adjudicated.

The Court held that the Tribunal could not treat the same termination as unlawful both for non-compliance with Section 25F—which concerns retrenchment other than disciplinary punishment—and for failure to initiate disciplinary proceedings, where the record showed prima facie compliance with the notice-pay requirement under Section 25F.

Although the parties cited authorities on ex parte awards and review or recall, the Court did not resolve those questions or rely on those authorities in setting aside the award.

The Court found that the employer had terminated the employee otherwise than as punishment through disciplinary action, bringing the termination within the definition of retrenchment and making the Section 2A(2) proceeding maintainable.

The termination letter recorded payment of one month’s notice pay, so the Tribunal’s finding of non-compliance with Section 25F was not sustainable on that basis.

The Court considered the Tribunal’s simultaneous reliance on Section 25F and the absence of disciplinary proceedings contradictory in the circumstances, and held the award perverse, erroneous, and bad in law.

It did not determine whether the Tribunal had rightly refused to set aside or recall the ex parte award.

It directed the employer to comply with clauses (b) and (c) of Section 25F within 30 days, if not already complied with, together with statutory interest from the date of retrenchment until payment.

The Court left the order refusing to set aside or recall the award undecided.