Supreme Court of India
State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money
Whether employment that ends on a date fixed in the appointment order is ended by retrenchment.
Decided under an earlier law
The Court decided this case under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Section 104 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 repeals the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Court's words are shown below beside the Code provision this library compares them with. This library does not say whether the decision holds good under the Code: compare the two texts.
What the Court decided
Each point is this library's summary, followed by the Court's own words, checked word for word against the Supreme Court's typed copy of the judgment (JUDIS file 5747). The pinpoint gives the page of the Supreme Court Reports and the margin letter (A to H) printed beside the line where the words begin.
A workman covered by section 25F cannot be retrenched without being paid, at the time of retrenchment, the compensation it prescribes.
if the workman swims into the harbour of s. 25F, he cannot be retrenched without payment, at the time of retrenchment, compensation computed as prescribed therein read with s. 25B(2).
[1976] 3 S.C.R. 160, at 164 D · open the report at p. 164 'Retrenchment' covered every termination of service, whatever the reason, other than the exceptions the definition listed. Employment that ended automatically on a date written into the appointment order was terminated just as if a later order had ended it.
Whatever the reason, every termination spells retrenchment.
[1976] 3 S.C.R. 160, at 165 C · open the report at p. 165 Termination embraces not merely the act of termination by the employer, but the fact of termination howsoever produced.
[1976] 3 S.C.R. 160, at 165 C · open the report at p. 165 A pre-emptive provision to terminate is struck by the same vice as the post-appointment termination.
[1976] 3 S.C.R. 160, at 166 C · open the report at p. 166
The earlier provision and the Code
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, section 2(oo)
As quoted in the judgment: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 160, at 164 E · open the report at p. 164
"retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for 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 … (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;
The judgment's typed copy misprints clause (b) (retirement on reaching the age of superannuation, where the contract of employment so provides), so it is left out here.
Industrial Relations Code, section 2(zh)
Definitions In force
(zh) "retrenchment" means the termination by the employer of the service of a worker for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action, but does not include—
(i) voluntary retirement of the worker; or
(ii) retirement of the worker on reaching the age of superannuation; or
(iii) termination of the service of the worker as a result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the worker concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or
(iv) termination of service of the worker as a result of completion of tenure of fixed term employment; or
(v) termination of the service of a worker on the ground of continued ill-health;
Wording in common: 53% of the words, in the same order.
Wording differs; the decision may not carry over. The Code provision is not worded like the provision the Court interpreted.
Also listed on: Industrial Relations Code, section 70 (Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workers In force).