PROMER SALES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. MANOHAR SONDHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent-workman (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) was appointed by the Petitioners-Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company) with effect from June 1, 1973 as a sales representative initially on temporary basis and was subsequently confirmed. The Company is a trading concern engaged in sale of radios, transistors, T. V. sets etc. , and has its branch office at Bombay from where the business was carried on throughout the State of Maharashtra. The complainant filed a complaint of unfair labour practice covered by Item 1 (a) (b) and (f) of Schedule IV of The Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU and PULP Act) in the Third Labour Court at Bombay against the company on the grounds that although he was an efficient workman for which he was even given rewards, his services were terminated with effect from March 11, 1978 for no rhyme or reason and thus the company engaged in unfair labour practice as the termination order was issued not in good faith but in colourable exercise of employers right and in utter disregard to the principles of natural justice and had thus victimised him. He, therefore, prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of services effective from March 11, 1978.

(2.) THE complaint was resisted by the company on various grounds. A preliminary objection was first of all raised that the complainant was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the I. D. Act) and then contending that his services were not terminated effective from March 11, 1978 but from February 27, 1978. It was the case of the company that the services of the complainant had to be terminated due to slump in the sales of radio receivers and it had become uneconomical for the company to continue him. It was also contended on behalf of the company that the company being a wholesale dealers in Telerad radios and the manufacturer having discontinued the production of these radios since September 1977, there was not enough work for the workmen. The company denied the allegations of the complainant that his services were terminated by way of victimisation and not in good faith but in colourable exercise of the employers rights. It was also one of the contentions on behalf of the company that the termination was not by way of punishment and, therefore, there was no question of holding a domestic enquiry against the complainant.

(3.) AS stated above, a preliminary issue was raised by the company that the complainant was not a workman within the meaning of section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act and, therefore, the learned Labour Judge embarked upon deciding that issue first as a preliminary objection. The learned Labour Judge critically examined all the evidence, oral as well as documentary, adduced by both sides in this regard and came to the conclusion by an order dated December 22, 1981 that the complainant was a workman as defined under section 2 (s) of the I. D. Act and, therefore, the case should proceed further on merits.