Retrenchment permission invalid for lack of service proof, but compensation granted instead of reinstatement

Failure to serve the retrenchment application on the concerned workmen, and to file proof of such service as required by the retrenchment procedure, was treated as non-compliance with a substantive procedural safeguard and rendered the permission invalid. However, because the substantive grounds for retrenchment had otherwise been accepted and the dispute arose in the context of an approved settlement, reinstatement was held inappropriate. The workmen were instead granted monetary relief by way of retrenchment compensation and an additional payment, subject to deductions for sums already paid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the permission for retrenchment was vitiated for want of service of copies of the employer's application on the workmen concerned as required by the governing retrenchment procedure; (ii) whether, on invalidation of the permission, reinstatement or monetary compensation was the proper relief.

Issue (i): Whether the permission for retrenchment was vitiated for want of service of copies of the employer's application on the workmen concerned as required by the governing retrenchment procedure.

Analysis: The requirement of serving copies of the application on the workmen and submitting proof of such service along with the application was treated as a substantive procedural safeguard. Mere assertions of service and postal certificates were found insufficient to establish compliance, especially when the application itself did not show that proof of service had been furnished to the specified authority. On that basis, the retrenchment permission could not be regarded as having been granted in accordance with law.

Conclusion: The retrenchment permission was invalid for non-compliance with the service requirement.

Issue (ii): Whether, on invalidation of the permission, reinstatement or monetary compensation was the proper relief.

Analysis: Although the retrenchment permission was held to be legally unsustainable, the dispute had arisen in the context of a settlement considered acceptable by the specified authority on the substantive grounds for retrenchment. In those circumstances, reinstatement was considered inappropriate, and the ends of justice were held to be met by directing payment of retrenchment compensation together with an additional sum to each workman, after appropriate deductions for amounts already paid.

Conclusion: Monetary compensation, not reinstatement, was the proper relief.

Final Conclusion: The retrenchment permission was set aside for procedural non-compliance, but the workmen were granted compensatory monetary relief instead of restoration to service.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute requires service of the retrenchment application on the workmen and proof of such service to be filed, failure to establish that compliance vitiates the permission, and the relief may be moulded by awarding compensation instead of reinstatement when the substantive grounds for retrenchment have otherwise been accepted.

---