RADHASINGH JOKHANSINGH Vs. HINDUSTAN HOSIERY MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of four petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution by the workmen of the respondent Hindustan Hosiery Mills raises a common question as to whether the lower Courts were right in dismissing workmen's application under Section 78 read with Section 79 and 42 (4)of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 ("act" for short) on the ground that the workmen did not approach the respondent within the period prescribed by Rule 53 of the Bombay industrial Relations Rules, 1947 ("rules", for short ).

(2.) THE fact are few and almost undisputed. There is no dispute that the workmen were in the employment of the 1st respondent. On November 10, 1979, the 1st respondent terminated their services by issuing letters of termination. The workmen thereafter by their separate letters dated april 8, 1980 approached the 1st respondents and demanded reinstatement with back wages. The 1st respondent, however, failed to comply with the approach notices of the workmen dated April 8, 1980. The workmen, therefore failed four separate application claiming reinstatement with back wages before the 2nd Labour Court, Bombay.

(3.) IN contesting the applications made by the workmen, the 1st respondents categorically asserted that the workmen's services were not terminated, but they were retrenched. But they were retrenched. The 1st respondent also raised a preliminary objection that the applications made by the workmen were barred by the provisions of Section 42 (4) read with Rule 53, because the approach was not made within three months from the date of cause of action, as required by rule 53 of the Rules.