VFC INDUSTRIES PVT LTD Vs. BALU GANPAT SAKPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2005 passed by the Industrial Court in revision against the order dated 27th August, 2004 passed by the Labour Court, mumbai, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent under the Maharashtra recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short "the Act") and directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent in service with backwages from 1st September, 1998 to 22nd of April, 2002, with continuity of service.

(2.) The petitioner-company has a factory at village Baska, Taluka Halol, district Panchmahal and had its administrative and commercial office in mumbai. The respondent was employed as a peon in the petitioner's office at mumbai. The petitioner decided to shift administrative and commercial office including accounts department from Mumbai to its factory at Baska, District panchmahal and put up a notice to that effect on the notice board on 25th August, 1998. The notice stated that the office will be shifted with effect from 1st september, 1998 and all employees should report for duty at the factory at Baska, district Panchmahal, who would be given 2nd class train fair and accommodation or house rent allowance in lieu of accommodation. Some of the employees joined the work at the transferred place, while others resigned the employment and were paid their dues.

(3.) The respondent neither resigned the service nor joined the work at the transferred place. According to the respondent he went for work as usual at the mumbai office on 1st September, 1998 where he was orally told by the managing Director Mr. Patel that his services were terminated. He approached the Union which wrote a letter to the petitioner on 12th September, 1998 which was not replied. The respondent then personally wrote a reminder on 2nd february, 1999 which also was not replied. The respondent therefore filed a complaint before the Labour Court on 17th February, 1999 alleging therein that the petitioner had committed unfair labour practice by unlawfully terminating his service. He claimed reinstatement with full back wages.