Mandatory retrenchment safeguards defeat late waiver pleas; non-compliance with statutory notice, compensation and seniority rules voids termination.

A plea of waiver or substantial compliance with retrenchment compensation requirements cannot be raised for the first time in appeal; waiver must be consciously relinquished, pleaded and proved, and was unavailable where not urged before the Tribunal or Single Judge. Retrenchment was also invalid because compliance with the mandatory safeguards under Section 25-F, including notice, compensation and notice to the Government, is essential, and breach renders retrenchment void ab initio. The Tribunal's finding of non-compliance with seniority requirements under Rule 77A also remained undisturbed. The award restoring the workman was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plea of waiver or substantial compliance with the requirements of retrenchment compensation could be raised for the first time before the appellate court. (ii) Whether the retrenchment was invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements governing retrenchment, including compliance with the seniority rule.

Issue (i): Whether the plea of waiver or substantial compliance with the requirements of retrenchment compensation could be raised for the first time before the appellate court.

Analysis: Waiver is a conscious relinquishment of a known right and must ordinarily be pleaded and proved by the party asserting it. A statutory protection may be waived only where the surrounding facts clearly disclose such waiver, and the plea cannot be introduced for the first time in appeal when it was not raised before the Tribunal or the learned Single Judge. The appellate court was therefore not justified in accepting a new plea of waiver or substantial compliance at that stage.

Conclusion: The plea of waiver or substantial compliance was not available to the employer for the first time in appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the retrenchment was invalid for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements governing retrenchment, including compliance with the seniority rule.

Analysis: Compliance with Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act is mandatory and requires notice, retrenchment compensation, and notice to the appropriate Government. Non-compliance renders retrenchment void ab initio. The Tribunal had also found violation of the seniority requirements under Rule 77A of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, and that finding had not been displaced by the High Court. In these circumstances, the retrenchment could not be sustained on the basis of an alleged minor shortfall in compensation.

Conclusion: The retrenchment was illegal and void, and the award restoring the workman was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appellate judgment was set aside, the award of the Industrial Tribunal as affirmed by the learned Single Judge was restored, and the workman succeeded in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: A mandatory statutory retrenchment safeguard cannot be defeated by a new plea of waiver raised for the first time in appeal, and non-compliance with the statutory conditions for retrenchment renders the retrenchment invalid.

---