AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LIMITED Vs. S TAKI BILGRAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, by special leave, is whether by terminating the services of the three clerks in question,. The appellant Company had made any illegal change within the meaning of S. 46 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (Bombay Act XI of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).

(2.) The facts leading up to the appeal may be stated. The appellant Company was the former proprietor of the New Pralhad Mills, Bombay. At the material time, namely, 1957, the mills were working three shifts in some of their departments. On December 8, 1957, the third shift was closed. On January 7, 1958 the appellant issued notices to the three clerks Nayak, Kelwalkar and Mhatre, with whom we are concerned in these proceedings, terminating their services with effect from February 8, 1958.

(3.) The second respondent herein, the union of the workers employed in the mills, by their letter dated February 7, 1958 requested the management to cancel the notices terminating the services of the clerks. The management sent a reply to the Union on February 10, 1958 justifying their action and declining to accede to the request of the Union. The exact terms of the notices dated January 7, 1958 as well as the reply dated February 10, 1958 will be adverted to later. There was also another clerk Dhuri against whom a notice of termination of service had also been issued. But we are not concerned with that clerk in these proceedings.