Retrenchment without Section 25-F compliance voids termination, while amended service rules governed the temporary employee's challenge.

Where service rules apply as "for the time being in force," the superseding amended rules govern the termination, and under the amended Rule 5 simultaneous payment of compensation was no longer a condition precedent, so the challenge based on the temporary service rules failed. The termination nevertheless amounted to retrenchment under the law then applicable because the employee had completed over 240 days' continuous service and the notice and retrenchment compensation requirements of Section 25-F were not met, rendering the termination void. Reinstatement with continuity was upheld, with only 50% back wages and consequential service benefits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the termination of the temporary employee on 29.4.1966 was invalid for non-compliance with Rule 5 of the applicable temporary service rules; (ii) Whether the termination attracted Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, if so, what relief followed.

Issue (i): Whether the termination of the temporary employee on 29.4.1966 was invalid for non-compliance with Rule 5 of the applicable temporary service rules.

Analysis: The service regulations referred to the temporary service rules "for the time being in force", so the superseding 1965 Rules governed the termination made in 1966. Under the amended Rule 5 of the 1965 Rules, simultaneous payment of compensation was no longer a condition precedent to termination; it became a right to claim compensation after termination. The earlier view treating non-simultaneous payment as fatal, based on the unamended rule, was no longer good law.

Conclusion: The termination was not invalid on the ground of Rule 5, and this contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the termination attracted Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, if so, what relief followed.

Analysis: The employee had completed more than 240 days of continuous service in the relevant year and the statutory requirements of notice and retrenchment compensation were not complied with. For the law then applicable, termination of service for any reason, otherwise than by way of punishment, amounted to retrenchment. The termination therefore fell within Section 25-F and was void. On relief, reinstatement with continuity was justified, but full back wages were not warranted on the peculiar facts and prolonged litigation.

Conclusion: Section 25-F was violated; reinstatement with continuity was upheld, with only 50% back wages and consequential service benefits.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to invalidity under the temporary service rules failed, but the employee ultimately succeeded on the statutory retrenchment ground, resulting in reinstatement with continuity and modified monetary relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the governing service rules refer to the rules for the time being in force, the superseding amended rules apply, and under the pre-amendment retrenchment regime any non-punitive termination of a workman with the requisite continuous service without compliance with Section 25-F is void.

---