AMARSINHJI MILLS LIMITED Vs. SANALAL G PATVI DECD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is a Limited Company and the Company is running a Textile Mill at Vankaner in Rajkot District. The petitioner Company is governed by the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 The original first respondent who died during the pendency of these proceedings was working as an Assistant Spinning Master with the petitioner Company. On October 25 1962 the original first respondent was discharged by the petitioner-Company and it was an order of discharge simplicitor. One months pay in lieu of notice was given and there was no show-cause notice nor any enquiry before this order of discharge was passed and according to the petitioner Company this order was not by way of punishment and it was not a punitive discharge. On October 29 1962 the original first respondent asked that the reasons for his discharge should be furnished to him; but no reply was given to this demand. On November 3 1962 the original respondent sent what is known as an approach letter contemplated by sec. 42(4) of the Bombay Industrial Act Relations (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By this letter the original first respondent called upon the petitioner Company to withdraw the discharge order and on November 4 1962 the petitioner-Company replied that no settlement was possible. Thereafter on February 16 1963 the original first respondent filed an application under sec. 78(1)(A)(a) before the Labour Court. This application was sent by registered post and it reached the Court on February 1S 1963 On October 24 1963 the Labour Court rejected the application on two grounds. The first ground was that the application was barred by limitation and the second ground was that the order was an order of discharge simplicitor and that there were no grounds for interference with the order passed against the original first respondent by the petitioner Company. On November 26 1955 the appeal preferred by the original first respondent before the Industrial Court was allowed by that Court and it was held that the application was within time and further it was held that the order of discharge passed by the petitioner Company was in colourable exercise of the power of the employer and was not a bona fide exercise of that power. Thereafter the present petition was filed in this Court on January 3 1966 challenging the order passed by the Industrial Court.

(2.) Mr. Nanavati on behalf of the petitioner-Company has urged the same two points as were considered by the Labour Court and the Industrial Court and he has contended firstly that the application when it was filed before the Labour Court was barred by limitation and secondly that there was patent error of law in the decision of the Industrial Court when it held that the order of discharge was passed by the petitioner Company in colourable exercise of its power.

(3.) We will take up the second point first. We find in the order of the Industrial Court that the learned President of the Industrial Court has examined the different grounds on which the order of discharge was sought to be supported and his conclusion is as follows:-