H M T LIMITED Vs. LABOUR COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised in both these appeals are more or less similar. The learned single Judge who decided the Original Petition which is subject matter of Writ Appeal No. 194/82 was only following the earlier judgment in O. P. No. 2140/81 which is the subject matter of Writ Appeal No 132/82.

(2.) In both these cases, the managements which had treated the services of an employee as terminated were the respondents in the Original Petitions and are the appellants in these appeals. In O. P. No. 2140/81 the challenge is to an order passed by the Labour Court, Ernakulam in an industrial dispute between the petitioner in the Original Petition and the 2nd respondent therein, the Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd., Kalamassery concerning the termination of service of the workman concerned. It was contended by the workman that his service was terminated without valid reasons and therefore he was liable to be reinstated with all benefits. This was met by the management by reference to Clause.19(4) of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the management's establishments. That clause provides for loss of lien by a workman by its operation on consecutive absence for a period of 8 days without leave. The Labour Court took the view that no termination as such was involved and therefore the question of retrenchment did not arise. It was found to be only a cessation of the lien by operation of the provisions of the Standing Order. This was challenged in the Original Petition by the workman concerned. In O. P. No. 6276/81 from out of which the other appeal arises the challenge by the petitioner was to an order Ext. P3 passed by the General Manager of United Electrical Industries Ltd., a Government owned Company. There again the Company took the view that the lien of the workman terminated and he was off from the rolls with effect from 14-5-1981 on account of the fact that be had overstayed the leave for more than 8 days and therefore under Clause.15(c) of the Standing Orders his lien had to be cut off.

(3.) In both these cases the question the learned single Judge had to decide was whether the consequence of termination of service arising by reason of the operation of the Certified Standing Order would be a termination falling within the scope of the term 'retrenchment' under the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned single Judge held that it would be and that is the view challenged in these appeals.