MUMBAI MAZDOOR SABHA Vs. S A PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ petitions, being Writ Petition No. 321 of 1988 and Writ Petition No. 295 of 1988 have been heard together as the basic issues involved in these two writ petitions are almost identical. 1a. These writ petitions involve consideration of the following interesting and important questions of law :

(2.) I shall first summarise the relevant facts concerning Writ Petition No. 321 of 1988. (

(3.) I shall now summarise the facts concerning Writ Petition No. 295 of 1988. On 6th June 1986, a settlement was arrived at between Engineering Mazdoor Sabha, the writ petitioner in this petition, and the Employer known as M. T. R. Pvt. Ltd. The period of the said Settlement was specified to be upto 30th June, 1987. Clause 2 of the said settlement is similar to Clause 2 of the settlement in Writ Petition No. 321 of 1988, though not identical. Clause 2 of the said settlement inter alia provided that the employer shall not resort to any lay off, retrenchment or termination of service in any manner in future of any workman during currency of the settlement except after obtaining the consent of the Sabha. The later part of the said clause is not the subject matter of any controversy. By the later part of the said clause, it was provided that the employer shall be at liberty to terminate the service of concerned workman if the workman committed act of gross misconduct, etc. By later part of the said clause, it was further provided that in case there was shortfall in work in any one of the departments or sections, the concerned workmen must accept suitable equivalent alternative job. Clause 2 of the said settlement reads as under: clause No. (2) : SECURITY OF JOB :