Holding

A fresh contract after superannuation is a separate employment; termination after its expiry is not retrenchment and Section 25F does not apply.

Summary

Binoy Kumar Chatterjee retired from Jugantar Ltd. upon reaching the superannuation age of 60 on 1 December 1976, received his gratuity and provident fund, and was subsequently offered a fresh twelve‑month contract as Assistant Editor. After the contract ended on 1 December 1977 he claimed that his services had been wrongly terminated and sought reinstatement, arguing that the termination amounted to retrenchment under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court examined the validity of the standing order requiring retirement at 60 under the Working Journalists Act and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, and held that the fresh contract was a separate engagement, not a continuation of the original service. Consequently, the termination did not fall within the definition of "retrenchment" in Section 2(00) and Section 25F was inapplicable. The petition for special leave was dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of the standing order mandating retirement at the age of superannuation.
Whether a fresh appointment after superannuation constitutes a continuation of service.
Whether termination after the expiry of the fresh contract amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Whether Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act applies to the petitioner’s case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

superannuationretrenchmentIndustrial Disputes Acttermination of servicefresh appointmentstanding ordersSection 25Freinstatementcontract employment

Judgment

684

. JUNOY K,U~AR CHATTERJEE
, .. _. l .. ~

v.'

M/s JUGANTAR.LTD. AND OTHERS

April 6, 198,3
-'.') '
(R.S. PATHAK AND A.P. SEN, JJ.)

Industrial /aw-Fresh appointment after attaining superannuation and
·~t Of all'd.ues-Whether termination of appointment after the axpiry of the.
c · COnffaCi will 'attract the provisions of Section 25 'F' of the Industrial Disputes
Act-Whether s11ch a termination is "retrenchment" within the meaning of
Section 2 (00) of the Act,

The petitioner v.ho joined the respondent Company as Sub Editor rose
to the position of Assistant Editor in 1976. On completing the age of sixty
years he was served with a notice of retirement dated November 6, 1976 inform~.
D ing him that he stood retired with effect from December 1, 1976•. He was paid
and he willingly received his dues on account of gratuity and Provident Fund
following such retirement. Thereafter, he was offered fresh employment as an
Assistant Editor for a period of twelve months under a contract. He accepted •
the employment on that basis. On the expiry of the period of twelve months.
he raised a dispute alleging that his Services had been wrongly terminated with
E effect from December l, 1976 and that he was entitled to continue in·service.

The Labour Court held (1) that he had actually retired from service with
effect from Deceml::er I, 1976, on reaching the age of superannuation and had
received his gratuity and Provident Fund ; (ii) that he entered into a fresh
agreement with. full kpowledge of its contents and consequences and took up
fre9h employment with the employer for a period of twelve months only and
F (iii) therefore his case not being one of retrenchment, he is not entitled to the
claim for re-instatement. Hence the petition for Special Leave to appeal
against the Award. Dismissing the petition, the Court
.,
HELD 1 : J. The subsequent service of the petitioner aro~e on a fresh
contract and cannot be regarded as a continuation of the original service.t687 F)
G
1 : 2 The resp~ndent employer is a Newspaper establishment, and
Section 14 of the Working-JournaJist (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act, 1955 provides that the provisions of the Industrial Employment
(Standing Order's) Act, 1946, as in force for the time b~ing will apply' to every
newspaper establishment. The Bengal Industrial Employment (Standing
H Orders) Rules 1946 were.amended by the State Government by a Notification
dated October 14, 1946 and Rule 2 A directed that matters relating to
superannuation would be additional included in the Schedule to the Industrial
Employment (Standing Order) Act 1946. In the re1ult the standing order
. ' - ·-
8INOY KUMAR v. JUGANTAR LTD. (Pathak, J.) . 68�

drawn up and applied by the respondent providing for retirement on reaching
the age of superannuation fell within the s�ope of its powers. The relevant A
standing order provided that a Working Journalist would retire at the age of
60 years. On attaining that age, the petitioner's services ceased, and nothing
more was required. In fact in acceptance of that position he drew his gratuity
and Provident Fund dues. [687 D·G]

2 .: 1. The age of superannuation marks the end point of the workman's
services. If he-is employed atleast thereafter for a term, such employment
B
cannot be regarded as employment contemplated within the definition of the
expression ''retrenchment" in Section 2 (00) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
[689 A-B]

2 : 2. Section 25 'F' applies where a workman is fetrenched and there-
fore the fresh employment of the petitioner not falling within the definition of
"retrenchment" his case can not be governed by Section 25 'F'. [688 A-BJ
C

State &ink of India v. Sri N. S11ndera Mony [1976] 3 S.C.R. 160 :
Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court. Orissa & Ors. [1977]
1 S.C.R. 586 : Delhi Cloth & General Mills Ltd. v. Shambunath Mokhetjee and
others [1978] I S.C.R. 591 ; Surendra Kumar Verma & Ors. v. Central Govt.
lndustria/-c11m-Labo11r Court, New Delhi & Anr. [1980] 4 S.C.R. 443, D
distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 7299 of 1981.

From the Judgment and Order dated the 27th April, 1981 of E
the Court of Second Labour West Bengal in Case No.
.
VIIl-C-3/
In9.

·M.K. Ramamurthy, Santosh Chatterjee and M.C. Dhingra for
the petitioner.
F
A.K. Sen, N.R. Choudhary, D.N. Mukherjee and Santosh
Mukherjee, for the respondents.

The Order of the Court was delivered by

PATHAK, J. The petitioner, Shri Binoy Kumar Chatterjee prays G
for special leave to app.eal under Art. 136 of the Constitution
against the award dated April 27, 1981 of the Second Labour Court,
West Bengal.

The petitioner was appointed to the post of Sub-editor in the H
employment of M/s Jugantar Limited in April 18, 1 960. In the
following month he was transferred to Delhi as a Special Correspon
dent. In August, 1976 he was transferred to Callcutta as an
SUPREME .COURT REPORTS lt983j 2 s.c.it.
Assistant Editor. Om completing 60 years of age he was served
A. with a notice of retirement dated November 6, 1976 informing him
that he stood retired with affect from December I, 1976. He was
paid and he willingly received, his dues on account of gratuity and
Provident Fund following such retirement. Thereafter, it seems that
he was offered fresh employment as an Assistant Editor for a period
oftwelve months under a contract. He accepted the employment on
s· that basis. On the expiry of the period of twelve months he raised a
dispute alleging that his service had been wrongly terminated with
effect from December 1, 1976 and that he was entitled t_o continue in
. service. ~-

C:
~he Government of West Bengal referred the dispute to the
Second Labour Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 for adjudication on the issue whether the termination of
the service of the petitioner was justified, and to what relief, was he
entitled: The Lap0ur Court considered the preliminary objection
Q. of the employer that there was no industrial dispute because . the
service of the petitioner had come to an end automatically on the
expiry of the period of contract. The . objection, although described
as a preliminary objection' involved the very question which the
Labour Court was called upon to decide in the reference. · Before the
E...- . Labour Court the case of the employer was that the services of the
petitioner stood terminated automatically with effect from December
I, 1976 on attaining the age of superannuation , that.is to say the age
of 60 years. Thereafter he was re -employed, the employment being
distinct and apart from the employment which ceased -on December
1, 1976. The fresh employment, according to the einpioyer, was
F governed by the express condition that it would enure for a period
of twelve months· only. The case of the workman, however, \\as
that .the further employment given to him after December _1, 1976
was in reality a continuation of the previous employment and
therefore the termination should be taken to be effectjve from
(;.. December 1, 1977, and should be regarded as retrenchment. The
Labour Court repelled the contention of the workman and held that
·he had actually retired from service with effect from December 1,
·1976, on reaching the age of superannuation and had received his
gratuity and Provident Fund. The Labour Court found that the
H workman had entered into a fresh agreement with the employer
u~de~ which he was given "employment for_ twelve m~nths, that the
contract was duly signed by. the petitioner with full knowtedge of its
contents and censcequences and was binding on him, ~nd that on thf'I
lllNOY KUM,t,.R v. JUCl,t,.NT,t,.R LTD. (Pathak, J.) .6.$7
expiry of the stipulate twelve monihs the petitioner had automati·
cally ceased to be in service. Accordingly, the Labour Court A
refused the relief of reinstatement claimed by the petitioner and
observed that the case could not be treated as one of retrenchment.

Two contentions have been raised before us by .learned. counsel
for the petitioner. Learned counsel urges that there was no binding B
provision fixing the age of superannuation, and that the provisiOn in ':'
the Standing Orders observed by the employer· was not sanctione\i by
any entry in the Schedule to the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, 1946. It is contended that consequently the petitioner
must be deemed to have continued in service throughout, and the
cesser of his service with effect from December 1, 1977 must be c:;
regarded as a unilateral termination of service by the employer. We
find no substance in the co.ntention. The respondent employer is
a newspaper establishment, and Section 14 of the Working Journa·
lists (Conditions of Service and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955
provides that the provisions of the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, i946, as in force for the time being, will apply to every D
newspaper establishment. The Bengal Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Rules, 1946 were amended by the State Gcwern·
ment by a notification dated October 14, 1946, and Rule 2A directed
that matters relating to superannuation would be additional matters
included in the Schedule to the Industrial Employment (Standing E
Orders) Act, 1946. In the result the Standing Order drawn up and
applied by the respondent providing for retirement on reaching the
age of superannuation fell within the scope of its powers. The
'fclevant Standing Order provided that a working journalist would
_retire at the age of 60 years. There can be no dispute that on
attainin~ that age the petitioner's services ceased, and nothing more V
was required. In fact, in acceptance of that position he .drew his
'; gratuity and provident fund dues. His subsequent service arose on
a fresh contract, and we are clearly of the view that it, cannot be
regarded as a continuation of the original service.
G
The other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the petitioner's service on the expiry of twelve months, on
December I, 1977, did not come to an end in law, because the
conditions of Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had not
been complied with by the respo::dent employer. Section 25F . H
provides that no workman employed in any industry who has been
in continuous service for not less than one year under the empfoyer
shaJI be retrenched by the employer until the workman has b!)en
SUPREME-COURT REPORTS (19g3j l S.C.R

gt~ the requisite notice in writing and has been paid at the time
A elf retrenchment, compensation at the specified rate and also that
notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate
Government or authority. Section 25F applies where a workman is
retrenched. The petitioner contends that even though he was
employed under a fresh contract after December I, 1976 he was in
continuous service thereafter for not less than one year and must be
regarded therefore as having been 'retrenched on December I, 1977.
Our attention is drawn to the definition of the expression "retrenchc
t'!'leflt" in Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It reads :

2(00) :-"retrenchment" means the termination by the
C employer of the service of a workman form any reason
whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by
way of disciplinary action, but does not include-

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman : or

n (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of
superannuation if the contract of employment between
. the employer and the workman concerned contains a
stipulation in that behalf; or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of
continued ill-health ;"

It is urged that in view of the law laid down by this Court in
State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money,(') Hindustan Steel ~
Limited v. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Orissa and Ors.. (2) Delhi
p Cloth & General Mi/ls Ltd. v. Shambhu Nath Mukherjee & Ors.(') and
Surertdra kumar Verma & Others v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal·
Cum-tabour Court, New Delhi and Anr.,(') the words "termination
by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatso-
ever" in the definition of the expression "retrenchment" covers every
kind of termination of service except that expressly excluded by the
'G definition. Ju our judgment none of those cases can be construed as
authoritJ governing ihe present case. In all those cases the question
arose oh a tetil'lination <lf the workman's services at a point of time
when the age of superannuation had not yet been reached. 'the

u-~----
(L) (1976]3SCR160.
(2) [1977) 1 SCR 586.
1:3) (1978] 1 sett. 591.
·<_.t] r1<JtoJ 4 sec 443.
lllNOY KUMAR v. JUGANTAR LTD. (Pathak, J.) ~Ai)

"" __. age of superanuation matks the end point of the workman's service. A
If he is employed afresh thereafter for a term, such employment
cannot be regarded as employment contemplated within the definition
of the expression "retremchment". We are of the view that the
termination of the petitiomer's service on the expiry of the period of
his contract on December I, 1977 does not fall with in the expression
"retrenchment" in Section 2(00) of the Industrial Disputes Act. B
·wj The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.

S.R. Petition dismissed.

-.