MADHAO SOIRU LAAD Vs. CHASE BRIGHT STEEL LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was employed by respondent No. 1 in August 1961 as Stenographer and was working in the office of respondent No. 1 at Bombay. On May 13, 1975, the services of the petitioner were transferred to the Branch Office of respondent No. 1 at Madras and on November 24, 1975 the petitioner was retrenched from service with effect from December 1, 1975 on the ground that sufficient work was not available.

(2.) The petitioner was an active member of the "Engineer Mazdoor Sabha" and the said Union filed complaint under S. 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") before the Presiding Officer, Third Labour Court, at Bombay complaining that the employer Company had committed unfair labour practice under Item 1 of the Schedule IV to the Act in retrenching the petitioner. The complaint, inter alia recites that the petitioner was an active worker of the Union and the employer did not approve of the work of the petitioner in enrolling other employees as members of the Union. As the petitioner had taken a leading part in organizing the workers and in other activities of the Union, the petitioner earned the displeasure and wrath of the Company. The Union, the alleged that the employer with a view to humiliate and punish, the petitioner was not allotted any worked and ultimately was transferred to Madras. It was clear that even at Madras the petitioner was given any work and ultimately he was retrenched. The Union alleged that the purported retrenchment is not a retrenchment at all and is a discharge and the whole action is mala fide and in bad faith and with ulterior motives. It was also claimed that, in any event, several persons junior to the petitioner have been retained in service and the petitioner was removed in clear violation of statutory provisions i.e. S. 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act.

(3.) The Company resisted the complaint by filing written statement and submitted that the petitioner was retrenched for want of sufficient work and the action of the Company was neither mala fide, not contrary to the provisions of law. It was claimed that owing to the continuous decline in the work at the Company's Head Office, the petitioner was transferred to its Branch Office at Madras. The transfer, according to the Company, was done in accordance with the desire of the President of the Union and the transfer was effected to avoid the retrenchment of the petitioner from the service in the Head Office itself. The Company claimed that the business carried out by the company was on decline over several years and the continuance of the petitioner in service was not necessary. The Company claimed that the retrenchment compensation alongwith other dues were paid to the petitioner and the retrenchment was in accordance with law.