JANATA MAZDOOR UNION Vs. TAS ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a trade union representing the workmen employed under respondent No. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 26th October, 1994 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Thane in Reference I. T. No. 19 of 1985, referred by Government of Maharashtra under section 10 (1) (d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication of the industrial dispute raised by the petitioner union on behalf of the 18 workmen mentioned in the order of reference. The industrial dispute on behalf of the said 18 workmen was in respect of their demand of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service with effect from 31st January, 1985.

(2.) THE petitioner union appeared before the Tribunal and filed its statement of claim to justify its claim of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. It was the case of the petitioner union that the respondent company had on 30th January, 1985 effected retrenchment of 20 workmen at the closing working hours on that day in contravention of the mandatory provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G of the I. D. Act, 1947. It was the case of the petitioner union that the respondent company had not offered or tendered in cash the amount of retrenchment compensation strictly in accordance with section 25-F of the Act simultaneously on 30th January, 1985. The union also complained that the respondent company had violated section 25-G of the Act as the Rule of seniority prescribed under section 25-G and Rule 79 in respect of retrenchment was not followed. According to the union one senior workman was retrenched while two junior workmen were retained in the employment. The petitioner also made a grievance to challenge the legality of the action of the retrenchment on the ground that the company had neither offered nor paid one months wages for the period of the notice as contemplated under section 25-F (a) of the Act. The union demanded that the wages in lieu of the notice period ought to have been the total wages for one month i. e. 30 days as the provision contemplates one months notice which means 30 days notice and which further means wages in lieu of 30 days. According to the petitioner union, there was no justification for the act of retrenchment resorted to by the respondent company. It also challenged the ground of retrenchment viz. , that the order position of the company had become weak and that there was no sufficient work for the workmen to be given for the whole month. According to the petitioner, even the compensation computed was actually not correct as in the daily wages considered for retrenchment compensation, the company did not include medical allowances and the benefit of leave travel allowance. The petitioner further challenged the order of retrenchment on three other points viz. , (i) The company had not given a notice of change under section 9-A of the I. D. Act before effecting retrenchment; (ii) The company had not given notice under section 25-C of the I. D. Act to the Government. (iii) The order of retrenchment was signed by the Managing Director of the company which was the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Standing Orders and, therefore, the order of retrenchment was illegal as it ought to have been signed by the manager and not by the managing director, depriving the workmen of filing an appeal before the Managing Director.

(3.) ON all the above grounds the petitioner sought to challenge the legality and propriety of the order of retrenchment before the Tribunal and prayed for the relief of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The respondent company appeared before the Tribunal and file its written statement contesting the reference on each and every ground of challenge, explaining and justifying its action of retrenchment. According to the respondent company, there was no violation of section 25-F of section 25-G of the Act as it had strictly complied with both the provisions of the law.