K.T. JOB Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WORKMAN involved in I.D. No. 13/1994 before the industrial Tribunal, Palakkad is the petitioner herein. He is challenging Ext.P1 award passed by the Tribunal in that I.D. The issue referred for adjudication was " retrenchment of Sri.K.T.Job, Part -Time Pumb Operator". The dispute arose in the following circumstances.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a part -time pump operator in the establishment of the management in 1986. On 24.03.1989 the petitioner was given a notice of retrenchment. On 07.04.1989 he was retrenched from service with effect from 12.04.1989. The petitioner filed a complaint before the Labour Officer on 17.04.1989. On 24.04.1989 the management withdrew the order of retrenchment and allowed him to join as a trainee. Later, on 30.05.1989 a notice was issued proposing to retrench the workman with effect from 09.09.1989 subject to permission to be obtained from the Government under Section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 03.07.1989 the Government refused to grant permission for retrenchment and directed grant of alternate employment to the workman. However, the management, by letter dated 10.07.1989, directed the petitioner report as a trainee. Petitioner was not willing to accept the same. On 01.09.1989 the Government held that this is against the spirit of the earlier order and therefore directed the management to employ the petitioner. Thereafter, the management moved the Government for a review of the earlier order, under Rule 25N (6) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The same was allowed and permission was granted to retrench the workman. Thereafter, the management issued a notice dated 16.10.1989 for retrenchment of the workman on 1.12.1989 he was retrenched from service. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute which culminated in Ext.P1 award. By Ext.P1 award the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the retrenchment was proper and valid. That award is under challenge before me.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the management would submit that the order under Section 25N(6) is only a continuation of the earlier proceedings initiated by the management by filing an application for permission in which the earlier order was passed. Therefore, there is no requirement of repeating the very same procedure for completing the retrenchment process. On that submission, the counsel would argued for sustaining Ext.P1 award.