INFOMEDIA INDIA LTD Vs. SUHAS SHRIPAD GADRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The First Respondent was engaged as a machine operator by the Petitioner at its establishment at Prabhadevi, Mumbai. The Petitioner was, at the material time, engaged in the business of printing. On 22nd June 1992, the First Respondent applied for leave from 1st July 1992 to 29th August 1992 on the ground that he was going on a tour to the southern part of India. The application for leave was sanctioned by the management and the First Respondent accordingly proceeded on leave. Upon the expiry of leave, the First Respondent did not report for duty. The evidence that has emerged from the record shows that it is now an undisputed position that the First Respondent never proceeded on any tour within the territory of India but instead, took up employment in South Africa with a Company by the name of Golden Era which carried on the business of printing. The First Respondent was drawing wages at the material time, in the amount of Rs.4,000/- per month with the Petitioner. In the course of his deposition, the First Respondent stated that the ticket for his travel to and accommodation in South Africa was arranged by the South African employer. The salary which the First Respondent received in South Africa during the tenure of his employment was Rs.15,000/- per month, at the material time, in September 1992.

(2.) On 15th September 1992, the Petitioner addressed a communication to the First Respondent and intimated to him that in terms of Clause 13.4 of the Certified Standing Orders, the First Respondent had lost his lien on the job and that his name had been removed from the muster roll with effect from that date. The case of the First Respondent is that he learnt of the communication dated 15th September 1992 while he was in South Africa and that he eventually returned to India in the month of December 1992; the cause for return being that he was unable to tolerate the atmosphere and the food in a foreign country.

(3.) The First Respondent moved the Conciliation Officer on 18th March 1993. On the conciliation proceedings having ended in failure, a reference was made for adjudication before the Industrial Court under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case of the First Respondent was that he proceeded to South Africa at the behest of the General Manager of the Petitioner, a person by the name of Mr. V.V. Kanuga. According to the First Respondent, the General Manager informed him that the Company was facing a recession and that if he found a job elsewhere, the Company would extend all possible co-operation. The Petitioner filed a Written Statement in which the case of the First Respondent was denied. Evidence was adduced in support of the Statement of claim by the First Respondent and, in defence, on behalf of the Petitioner. The Labour Court by its award dated 21st April 2003 held that the termination of the services of the First Respondent amounted to retrenchment under Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and since the retrenchment had been effected without complying with the provisions of Section 25F, the termination from service was illegal. The Petitioner was directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service with effect from 15th September 1992 with back wages quantified at 50%.