RAJNAGAR TEXTILE MILLS, AHMEDABAD Vs. KALIDAS MOTIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question is, whether the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad, as an appellate court, was justified in passing the impugned order dated 9-7-92 by which the order of dismissal of respondent-applicant before the labour court was set aside and the petitioner-company was directedtoabsorbthe respondent-applicant as permanent Safai Kamdar and to place him above Bhogilal Vashram, Jayanti Shankar, Jayanti Magan and Pratap Manji and to reimburse the economic loss suffered by him by not offering him work from 2-1-1982 to 11-2-1986 and also directed to pay to the respondent-applicant the difference of salary between that of Safai Kamdar and Doffer from 11-2-1986 till date.

(2.) That admittedly respondent-workman was working as a Badli Doffer since 1973 with the petitioner-mill company. It appears that in 1982 a settlement was arrived at between the mill-Company and the TLA representative union representing the employees of the Textile Mills in the State and a mode was agreed upon for filling up the permanent posts of Safai Kamdars. The respondent's contention was that though he was senior-most Badli Doffer he was not offered permanent post and instead some persons junior to him whose names are listed in the final order of the court were offered the said posts. Hence, his grievance was that the work of Safai Kamdar was not assigned to him though he was entitled, and therefore, the mill-company had committed breach of provisions of Schedule III, Category 2 of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, and therefore, he moved application U/sec. 79 of the Act. The Labour Court which heard the application took the view that the applicant had given his first approach letter to the mill-company prior to three months of filing of application, hence application was liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. It was also held that other permanent workmen who were alleged to be junior to the respondent were not joined as parties, and hence, the application was liable to be dismissed also on the ground of non-joinder of parties. The Labour Court also found that the case of the respondent that work was refused to him from 2-1-1982 could not be believed as he himself had made complaint to the Labour Commissioner on 21-1-1982 that he was not given work on that day when he reported for duty. For all these reasons application of the respondent-workman was dismissed.

(3.) The respondent-applicant carried the matter in appeal. The appellate court after hearing both the parties took the view that as the applicant's case was covered by Section 78(1) A(a)(iii) read with Schedule 3 Item 2 of the Act the limitation for applying would start from the last approach letter and not first approach letter. Admittedly, last letter was dated 3-5-1982 which was received by the Mill Company on 5-5-982 while the application was moved in the same month, i.e. on 31st May 1982. Therefore, it was not barred by limitation. It was also held that the applicant was not claiming any seniority against other workmen, but his grievances was against non-assignment of work as Safai Kamdar and that as he was working since 1973 as temporary workman he was entitled to be given one of the posts which was available in those days as agreed to between the Labour Union and the mill-company but that was not offered to him on the ground that the respondent had not remained present in the mill premises on that day. The said stand of the mill-company was patently illegal and the assignment of work was wrongly refused. On this finding the appeal was allowed and the aforesaid order was passed.