(1.) AT the relevant time S. 3(13) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act ran as follows :
(2.) IT will be noticed that the definition of the word 'employee' quoted above is in two parts. In the main part the term as defined to mean any person employed to do any skilled or unskilled work for hire or reward in any industry. In the second part, which may be called the inclusive part, of the definition are included contractor's employees and employees who are dismissed or discharged under certain circumstances.
(3.) WE have noticed above that the Industrial Court relied on a previous decisions of its Full Bench in Soma Ramjee Varghade v. Shri Madhusudan Mills Ltd., Bombay [1965] I C R 261 for holding that a retrenched employee was not an 'employee' under S. 3(13). The decision of the Full Bench of the Industrial Court in that case was based on the assumption that an ex -employee is not covered by the main part of the definition of 'employee' in S. 3(13) and that he can be held to be an employee only if he is covered by sub -clause (b) of the inclusive part of the definition. On that assumption the Full Bench considered whether a retrenched employee is covered by the expression 'dismissed or discharged' which occurred in sub -clause (b). The Full Bench held that a retrenched employee is neither dismissed nor discharged and that he is, therefore, not an 'employee' and cannot file an application for reinstatement under Ss. 78 and 79 of the Act.