ANAND PANDURANG MHASKAR Vs. EASTERN ENGINEERING WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is aggrieved by the Award dated 30/09/1994 passed by the III labour Court, Thane in Reference (IDA)'no. 212/1991. The learned Presiding Officer had rejected the Reference and had held that the employment of the Petitioner was terminated by way of retrenchment w. e. f. 30/11/1990.

(2.) IT was the case of the Petitioner before the Labour Court that he was orally terminated from the employment w. e. f. 9/11/1990 and he challenged his aforesaid oral termination as illegal, improper and unjustified. According to him, on that day he was not offered any retrenchment compensation or even a letter of retrenchment. According to the Petitioner, he had approached the Government Labour officer on 15/11/1990 to challenge the oral termination w. e. f. 9/11/1990. The petitioner thereafter had raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the III Labour Court, Thane. In the order of reference the dispute referred for adjudication was the demand of the petitioner, which reads as under:

(3.) THE Petitioner filed his statement of claim before the Labour Court on the ground that he was unlawfully orally terminated from employment w. e. f. 9/11/1990. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent company did not follow the due process of law before terminating him orally from employment w. e. f. 9/11/1990. The respondent company opposed the Reference by filing its written statement. It was the case of the Respondent Company that in view of the market, position it had contemplated to resort to reduction in the cost and it was further contemplated to reduce the staff as economy measures. According to the Respondent company the Petitioner had overheard this talk from the senior members of the staff and apprehending that he would be retrenched from employment he started remaining absent from 9/11/1990. It was the case of the respondent Company that in effect it had issued an Order of Retrenchment on 27/11/1990 to retrench the Petitioner w. e. f. 30/11/1990. The Order of retrenchment was followed by the amount of retrenchment compensation under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was sent by the Company to the Petitioner by money Order. The Petitioner had refused to accept the Order of Retrenchment dated 27/11/1990 as also the Money Order which was sent to him. In the circumstances the respondent Company justified its action as proper, legal and valid. According to the respondent Company it had complied with the mandatory provision of Section 25-F of the Act and prayed that the Reference should be rejected.