JUDGMENT
R.K. Patra, J.
1. Both the aforesaid Writ Petitions are analogous inasmuch as in both of them the order dated August 24, 2000 (Annexure-7 in OJC 8267 of 2000 and Annexure-2 in OJC 12027 of 2000) passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) is the subject matter of challenge. The Petitioner in O.J.C. 8267 of 2000 seeks to challenge that part of the impugned order by which the Assistant Labour Commissioner has rejected the claim for payment of notice pay by the employer. In OJC 12027 of 2000 the Petitioner-employer questions the validity of the impugned order by which the Assistant Labour Commissioner directed payment of ex- gratia to the workmen. Both the cases were heard together with the consent of counsel for parties and are disposed of by this common order.
2. Parties in both the writ petitions are the same, but are arrayed differently. Therefore, for the sake of convenience we, in this order have referred Alumina Mazdoor Sangh as ‘the Union’, National Aluminium Company Limited as the ‘Principal employer’ and Ratna Construction company as the ‘Labour Contractor’.
3. Because of failure of the Labour Contractor to settle the legitimate dues of the Union, industrial dispute was raised pursuant to which the Assistant Commissioner took up the matter for conciliation. At this stage labour contractor filed Writ Petition bearing OJC No. 1777 of 2000 in this Court for quashing of the notice of the Assistant Labour Commissioner. This Court by order dated March 31, 2000 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Assistant Labour Commissioner to determine the dues of the workmen within one month from the date of communication of the order. The principal employer was also directed not to release the amount of the workman on account of the disputed notice pay, ex-gratia payment, etc. Pursuant to the said direction, the Assistant Labour Commissioner took up the matter and by the impugned order rejected the claim of the Union for one month notice pay in lieu of the notice. He also directed payment of ex-gratia @ 8.33 per cent to the workmen. The Union, as already indicated, in its Writ Petition (OJC No. 8267 of 2000) contends that the order rejecting the claim of notice pay is illegal. The Labour Contractor in its OJC No. 12027 of 2000 submits that the direction of the Assistant Labour Commissioner for payment of ex gratia to the workmen is unjustified.
4. Let us first consider whether the Assistant Labour Commissioner is justified in rejecting the claim of the Union for payment of notice pay by the Labour Contractor. There is no dispute that under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, a workman is entitled to one month’s notice before retrenchment or one month’s pay in lieu thereof. Such notice or payment in lieu thereof is a condition precedent for effecting retrenchment. It is also not in dispute that no notice was given either to individual workman or to the Union nor in lieu of notice one month’s pay. What was done by the Labour Contractor was pasting of notice on I the office notice board. Publication of notice in the notice board is not a substitute for individual service of notice on each workman. This being the factual position, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has clearly erred in holding that the condition precedent of Section 25-F had been complied with the pasting of notice in the notice board. The Assistant Labour Commissioner has also held that in the wage slip furnished to each individual workman, the tenure of contract was mentioned, and as such, all of them were aware of the tenure of the contract, and therefore, no notice is necessary. The learned counsel for the Union produced before us a copy of the employment card from which one cannot assume that the term of employment was mentioned therein. That is a card used by a workman for his identity. It cannot be held to be an order for employment. For the aforesaid reasons, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has erred in rejecting the claim of one month’s notice pay raised by the Union on behalf of its workmen. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the order dated August 24, 2000 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner and remit the matter to him for fresh disposal according to law. The Assistant Labour Commissioner will give opportunity of hearing to all concerned and dispose of the matter according to law. The aforesaid inquiry to be made by the Assistant Labour Commissioner is confined to the claim of one month’s notice pay only.
5. Let us examine the validity of the order by which the Assistant Labour Commissioner has granted ex gratia payment to the workmen of the Union. In the settlement arrived at as per the agreement dated February 13, 1997 between the Union and the Labour Contractor, the contractors have agreed to pay ex gratia at the time of retrenchment of the workmen @ 8.33 per cent. The said agreement is at Annexure-5 in OJC No. 8267 of 2000. Clause-3 thereof reads as follows:
“Since Bonus is not applicable under law, it is agreed by the contractors that they shall pay ex gratia at the time of retrenchment to the workmen @ 8.33% if same percentage was paid by the previous contractor while retrenching.”
6. In view of the settlement arrived, at between the workmen and the contractor for payment of ex gratia, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has rightly granted the said relief to the retrenched workmen. We therefore, do not find any illegality in that part of the impugned order.
7. For the reasons aforesaid, there is no merit in O.J.C No. 12027 of 2000 which is accordingly dismissed. The O.J.C. No. 8267 of 2000 is allowed.
P.K. Misra, J.
8. I agree.
