MANAGEMENT OF INDOTECH ELECTRIC COMPANY Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the first respondent in I. D. No. 259 of 1994 and quash the award dated 2. 7. 1996.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner management is that the second respondent was working with the petitioner company from 7. 12. 1987 and all of a sudden, he was dismissed from service on 4. 11. 1989 and as per the settlement arrived before the Labour Officer on 31. 3. 1993, the second respondent was reinstated into service with continuity of service, but without any backwages and thus he is working from 1. 4. 1993. On account of the unfair labour practice of the petitioner, the employees went on strike from 5. 4. 1993 to 17. 4. 1993 and since the second respondent was also a member, the petitioner management retrenched him from service on the ground that he was a casual and probationer. But, the Labour Court disagreeing with the contention of the management and further finding that the juniors of the second respondent have been confirmed as permanent employees, has ordered reinstatement of service, full backwages and other attendant benefits. Aggrieved, the management has filed this writ petition.

(3.) DURING the arguments the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/management would submit that in the case of the second respondent his services were not regularised after completion of the probation period and hence his services were terminated as per the order dated 4. 11. 1993. The learned counsel would further submit that the plea of the victimisation has not been proved before the Labour Court; that the reasons assigned are (i) that the second respondent's juniors are not terminated and they are still in service and therefore the termination is not correct; that only in the case of surplus workmen, which is not the case prevalent in the facts in hand and hence the order of termination is bad; (ii) the management has not informed the workman about his performance; and (iii)thirdly the evidence of management that in the case of supervisor who gave evidence about the unsatisfactory work could not be accepted, as he was not the only supervisor to supervise the work.