SHRIDHAR MAYAJI PARAB Vs. HINDUSTAN SPINNING AND LEAVING MILLS LTD, VEER SAVARKAR MARG, PRABHADEVI, BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition challenges the order of the Labour court passed under sections 78 and 79 of the Bombay industrial Relations Act. The Labour Court had granted reinstatement With 50% backwages W. e. f. 26.8.1985 along With continuity of service.

(2.) It is the case of the Petitioner that he Was working in the Respondent Mill as a Roll Folder from 1976. On 18.1.1982) a general strike Was resorted to by some of the Mill workers. According to the Petitioner, he could not report for duty because of the tense atmosphere prevailing at the Mill gates. He Was beaten up by the striking Workers and despite his efforts, he was not able to report for Work. The Petitioner has also stated that despite all these difficulties, he reported for duty on and off during 'the period 1982 - 1985. However, he Was not allowed to resume duty. On 25.8.1985, When the Petitioner reported at the mill gates for duty he Was informed that his- services had been terminated much earlier. Immediately thereafter, the Petitioner gave an approach notice as required under section 42 (4) of the BOMBAY industrial RELATIONS ACT, 1946. This approach notice Was not replied to by the respondent and therefore, the Petitioner filed the application under section 78 r/m 79 of the Bombay industrial Relations Act for reinstatement With continuity of service and full back pages. In reply to the application, the respondent-mill contended that the petitioner's services had been terminated pursuant to an enquiry held against him for participating in a strike which Was declared. to be illegal, and that the dismissal order had been issued to him on 3.9.1982. It Was pleaded in the Written statement that the Petitioner. Was not entitled to maintain the application as the approach letter under section 42 (4) had not been submitted Within the requisite time. The Respondent had also stated in their Written statement that the dismissal order Was issued pursuant to an enquiry because the Petitioner had not cared to attend duty despite the appeals to report for duty being published in the newspapers. The appeal was published again in 'nayakal' on 31.12.1981 requiring permanent operatives to resume work. According to the respondent, the Petitioner had sufficient knowledge of the fact that the dismissal order Was passed as it Was published in the daily newspaper Mumbai Sakal on 2.10. 1982.

(3.) The evidence of the workman was led before the labour Court and of the Manager of the Mill on behalf of the Respondent. The workman in his evidence denied having received either the chargesheet or the letter stating that an enquiry had been instituted against him or the enquiry proceedings or the dismissal order, according to him, he had left his place of residence and had in fact informed the Respondent mill of his change of address. He denied having received the dismissal order under Certificate of Posting at his Mumbai address or having received the dismissal order at his native place. The Petitioner also examined his co-workman who has corroborated the Petitioner's evidence that they used to report for the duty at the mill even during the strike period but were not allowed to resume duty. The witness for the mill has deposed that the Petitioner had not approached the Mill after the dismissal order was served and that therefore, his dues were not settled. According to, him, the dismissal order was sent to the petitioner's address by Registered Post as well as under certificate of Posting. He has also stated that the dismissal order Was published in the newspaper on, 2.10. 1982 and that the copy of the order sent under certificate of Posting Was not returned by the postal authorities.