SIMPLEX ELECTRONICS Vs. VIMLABEN ATMARAM YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has brought under challenge an award dated May 4, 1993 passed by the Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (LCA) No. 600/1990 whereby, the Labour Court has directed the petitioner firm to reinstate the respondent with full back wages.

(2.) The respondent was working in the petitioner firm as a labourer. It appears from the record that the case of the petitioner-firm before the trial court was to the effect that the petitioner-firm was passing through hard times and was short of orders as a result of which it was compelled to 'lay-off the workmen. After continuing the 'lay-off for certain period, the petitioner firm realized that the unit had become unviable and therefore, it decided to retrench some of the workmen. It also transpires that along with the respondent, other 8 workmen were also retrenched. The respondent herein was retrenched with effects from November 14, 1982. Upon being aggrieved by the retrenchment, the respondent raised an industrial dispute. The conciliation proceedings failed. Hence, the appropriate Government, vide order dated March 19, 1993, made an Order of Reference referring the dispute for adjudication. The said order of reference culminated into above mentioned reference proceedings. During the proceedings, the respondent workman examined herself. Her deposition was recorded below Exhibit 12. One Mr. Sirishbhai Gordhanbhai was examined as witness of the petitioner firm whose deposition was recorded below Exhibit 19. After the conclusion of the stage of evidence and upon hearing the submissions of both sides, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned award. Having come to the conclusion that while retrenching the respondent workman, the petitioner firm had committed breach of Section 25-F(c), the Labour Court directed the petitioner firm to reinstate the respondent with full back wages. It deserves to be mentioned that before the Labour Court, the petitioner firm had placed on record that the manufacturing unit of the petitioner firm was subsequently closed down.

(3.) Mr. Clerk, learned advocate, has appeared for the petitioner firm and Mr. Rathod, learned advocate, has appeared for the respondent workman. I have heard the learned advocates at length.