MANAGEMENT OF SEERANAICKENPALAYAM WEAVERS COOPERATIVE Vs. N SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal has been filed by the management against the order of the learned single Judge, dated July 5, 1996, and made in W. P. No. 7130 of 1987, wherein the learned Judge directed the management to reinstate the workman in service with consequential benefits.

(2.) FOR the convenience, we shall refer the parties as arrayed in the writ petition. The writ-petitioner was employed in the first respondent-society. He was assigned with clerical works like maintaining Tapal Register, Books, Forms, Stocks Register, Telephone Register etc. According to him, due to ill- health, he was on medical leave from July 5, 1982 to August 5, 1982. At that time, the union served charter of demand to the first respondent demanding revision of wages, filling up of existing vacancies of salesman. Since there was some misunderstanding between the petitioner and the Vice-President and another co-worker, N. Chandrasekar, they were called by the Vice-President and one of the Board of Directors and asked to resign from the union. The petitioner and the co-worker refused to do so. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the Vice- President and the Director did not allow the petitioner to work and sent out him (petitioner) and the co-worker out of society. On August 25, 1982 the petitioner sent a letter to the first respondent for reinstatement in service. On August 26, 1982 he was not allowed to work. The petitioner was retrenched from service with effect from August 25, 1982. Hence he moved the Labour Court. The Labour Court, after having held that the retrenchment was not valid, has directed the first respondent to pay Rs. 7,752 as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Against the order of the Labour Court, the petitioner filed W. P. No. 7130 of 1987 before this Court.

(3.) THE society has filed a counter-affidavit wherein it is stated that the petitioner was sent for co-operative training in the year 1978. It is also admitted that the petitioner was doing other work in addition to the duties of salesman. The society was one of the successful societies mainly due to quality of the sarees and shirting, which were the main products of the society. Due to various technical factors, there was steady decline in the marketability in the overseas. All these adverse factors reflected in the working results of the society. There was decrease of profit and some times the society incurred loss also. Therefore, considering all these aspects, decision was taken by the Board of Directors on August 20, 1982 to retrench the petitioner from service, he being the junior most clerical employee of the society. There was no mala fide intention. There are only two employees in the society and only 20 looms are working. The Board of Directors decided in the meeting held on August 20, 1982 and accordingly he was served with an order of retrenchment. The petitioner refused to receive the same and it was sent by registered post on the same day. The notice pay and other dues were also sent by money order on the very same day. After considering the various aspects, the Labour Court ordered payment of additional compensation. Therefore, there is no justification for interference by this Court.