DINKAR RAMCHANDRA AMBONKAR Vs. PHOTOPHONE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned an Award dated 7th January, 1983, made by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, in reference (IT) No. 23 of 1980 under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE petitioner was in the employment of the first respondent as a Miller in the Machine Shop. He joined service on 6th May, 1970 as a casual workman, was appointed on probation as a miller on 12th October, 1970, and confirmed in service as a Miller on 12th April, 1971. He came to be retrenched from service with effect from 11th August, 1978 by an order of Retrenchment dated 11th August, 1978. The workman, through his union, raised an industrial dispute, demanding reinstatement in service with full back-wages, and the said dispute came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, and was marked as Reference (IT) No. 23 of 1980.

(3.) THE principal contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that, at the material time, though a large number of workmen employed in the first respondent's industrial establishment were members of a trade union known as Bharatiya Kamgar Sena, which had signed a settlement with the first respondent, some of the employees in the Machine Shop, including the petitioner, were members of another union known as Engineering Workers Union, and had refused to subscribe to the said settlement. It was alleged that the petitioner and two other workmen working in the Machine Shop (who are the petitioners in the companion Writ Petition 3388 of 1983 and 3389 of 1983) were active workers of the Union, known as Engineering Workers union. The petitioner alleged that the refusal of the petitioner and his two companion workmen of the Machine Shop to accept the terms of the settlement signed between the first respondent and Bharatiya Kamgar Sena had caused annoyance to the employer, i. e. , the first respondent. The first respondent was, therefore, out to wipe out the remnants of Engineering Workers Union from its establishment, and, pursuant to this design, the first respondent illegally laid off workers of the Machine Shop on a false pretext of lack of work, and followed it up with retrenchment orders issued to the three workmen of the Machine Shop. Though, ostensibly, the retrenchment orders were issued for lack of work as a result of discontinuation of a few products of the Company, the petitioner alleged that this was a mere bogey, and, in fact, plenty of work was available in the machine Shop to be given to the petitioner and his two companion workmen, who were too staunch loyalists of the Engineering Workers Union. It was, therefore, contended that the retrenchment was by way of victimization. It was, therefore, prayed that the retrenchment order be set aside and the petitioner be given the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service.