RAMESHPANDHRINATH TAHARABADKAR Vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner union appears to have espoused the cause of in all 107 employees who were employed by the State of Maharashtra under the Respondents nos. 1 to 5 as the heads of their Divisions/departments respectively The State government had commenced and completed the grgantic project in the region of marathwada for progress, welfare and benefits of the region, within a penod of 30 years, namely Jayakwadi Project, under the Irrigation Department of the state admittedly the project was completed in 1976 On completion of the said project immediately next connected work of canal construction had to be started and the same was started in 1977 and was finally completed in 1984 in different phases as devised by the respondents engineers Admittedly thousands of hands were required to complete such a gigantic project As a result of the completion of the work/ project retrenchment of workmen naturally becomes essential as they cannot be continued after the work is over We are presently concerned with three groups of the workmen who were amongst those retrenched as a result of closure of the divisions under the project 86 workmen from the Division No. 1 were issued notice on 29 12 1984 and two workmen were issued such notices dated 28 2 1986 from division no. 3 and all workmen were issued such notices dated 31 10 1988 from Division no. 4 Another group of 7 workmen from a Division which is known as PR VC was also required to be issued such notices on 31 10 1988 The respondents had issued aforesaid three sets of notices to the concerned workmen purportedly U/s 25 N of the Industrial Disputes Act, purportedly giving three months notice and purportedly saying in the notice that they would be retrenched after the expiry of three months Since the notices were issued on different dates, three months expired on different dates The contents of all the three sets of notices were identical All the said notices informed the workmen that the work of the project was completing and that their services were not required and therefore, they had become redundant and therefore, their services were to be retrenched In the said notices, they were further informed that they would be paid retrenchment compensation in accordance with law It is an admitted fact that alongwith the said notices no such retrenchment compensation was offered to them The first notice dated 30 6 1984 expired on 1st October, 1984, the second notice dated 9 7 1984 expired on 9. 10. 84 and the third notice dated 16. 7. 84 similarly expired on 16th october 1984. In respect of tender or offer of the retrenchment compensation U/ s 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 it has been the case of the respondent that by a communication dated 25. 9. 1984, before the expiry of the three months notice period the workmen under the notices were informed that they should collect the retrenchment compensation from their respective officers of the divisions under which they were working. There is a dispute about the receipt of such letter.

(2.) THE petitioner union challenged the aforesaid action of the retrenchment of the workmen by filing a complaint of Unfair labour Practice under items 5,7 and 9 of Schedule IV of the M. R. T. U. andp. U. L. P. Act, 1971. The thrust of the complaint was only item no. 9 of schedule IV of the Act. Other items have not been even referred to by the learned advocate for the complainant. The entire emphasis was on item 9 i. e. "failure to implement award settlement or agreement. " Based on the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S. G. Chemicals and pharmaceutical Company's case the petitioner questioned the orders of retrenchment issued by the respondents being in violation of Section 25f, 25n, 25g and section 32 (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since the respondents have not impledmented the aforesaid legal provisions of the Act, they have committed an unfair labour practice within the meaning of item no. 9 of the Schedule IV of the act is the only submission on the part of the petitioner union.

(3.) BOTH the parties adduced their documentary and oral evidence before the industrial Court. The learned Member of the Industrial Court framed as many as 14 issues and answered the same on the basis of the pleadings and evidence against the petitioner union and dismissed the complaint by his order dated 28. 4. 1989. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order before this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard both the learned advocates for the petitioner union as well as the respondents. I have carefully gone through the proceedings and the impugned judgment and order of the learned Member of the Industrial court. The learned Member has recorded his reasons for the conclusions drawn by him. Generally I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the conclusion part of the order. As far as the want or absence of evidence is concerned, the learned Member is right as the petitioners have failed to bring on record the required evidence in support of their case that the retrenchment orders were void abinitio and illegal being in contravention of the mandatory provisions of Sections 25f, 25g and 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Not even a single workman has stepped in the witness box to say that no retrenchment compensation was offered to him or to say that he had nor received a communication requiring him to collect the amount of retrenchment compensation from the office of the Division where he was an employee. Even in the case of seniority no evidence was adduced to say that there was violation of rule of seniority framed U/s 25g of the Act. Similarly there is hardly any case for the petitioners to challenge the retrenchment orders on the ground of violation of Section 33 (1) and 33 (2) of the Act. The challenge in respect of general demands of the employees of the Irrigation Department of the entire state of Maharashtra were pending and during the pendency of such conciliation proceedings 107 workmen have been issued retrenchment notices which amounted to alterations in their service conditions It is clear from the record that no such conciliation proceedings were pending when the retrenchment notices under question were issued by the respondents Admittedly the conciliation proceedings were commenced on and from 189 1984 while retrenchment notices were issued much before this date I am not able to accept the submissions on the part of the petitioners that the period of 3 months given in the said notices expired after the conciliation proceedings were commenced and therefore, there was violation of Section 33 (1)and (2) of the Act It would be a far fetched argument The point of alteration in service, in the case of retrenchment was on the date of the notice and not after the expiry of notice penod of 3 months On the date of such notices the conciliation proceedings were not commenced and were not pending and therefore, the challenge to the legality of such notices U/s 33 (1) and (2) of the Act must fail There is no substance in the submissions on behalf of the petitioner