PRAKASH D BANDIWADEKAR Vs. KILLICK SLOTTED ANGLES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order dated 17th December 1990 made by the Industrial Court, Bombay. Dismissing the Petitioners Complaint (ULP) No. 568 of 1988 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.

(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of the 1st Respondent company. On 17th September 1981 the 1st Respondent abruptly terminated the services of the petitioner without complying with any provisions of law and the Standing Order. The petitioner being aggrieved raised an industrial dispute for his reinstatement in service with continuity and back-wages. The industrial dispute was processed under the law and resulted in Reference (IDA) No. 293 of 1982 for adjudication of the Labour Court, Bombay. Pending the Reference, the industrial undertaking in which the petitioner was employed was permanently closed with effect from 31st August 1986. The Labour Court made an Award dated 29th April 1987 in Reference (IDA) No. 293 of 1982 holding that the petitioner was a 'workman' within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the termination of his service was not justified. However, in view of the permanent closure of the Industrial undertaking in which the petitioner was employed at the time of raising the dispute, the Labour Court was not in a position to grant relief of reinstatement. Since the evidence on record showed that the petitioner had some alternative source of income during the period of his employment the Labour Court was inclined to reduce the back-wages to 75% of what he would have been otherwise eligible. In the result, the Labour Court directed by its Award; (a) payment of one month's notice pay and retrenchment compensation by treating the service of the petitioner as continuous service from 28th March 1972 to 31st August 1986 and (b) payment of 75% of the back-wages for the period from 17th September 1981 to 31st August 1986.

(3.) ONE would have thought that the saga of long litigation came to an end with the Award of the Labour Court. However, the litigation persisted. The 1st Respondent challenged the Award of the Labour Court by its Writ Petition No. 2619 of 1987 which was summarily rejected on 31st August 1987 by Brother Variava, J. The Learned Counsel appearing for the 1st Respondent sought two months time to comply with the impugned Award and made a statement that the 1st Respondent will not file an appeal and consequently this Court permitted the 1st Respondent to comply with the Award of the Labour Court within a period of two months from the date of its order.