SHANKARPRASAD GOPALPRASAD PATHAK Vs. LOKMAT NEWSPAPERS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal arises from the dismissal in limine of Writ petition No. 70 of 1991 filed by the appellant before the Single Bench of this Court, on 25-4-1991. This appeal arises in the backdrop of the facts stated below.

(2.) THE appellant is an employee of the respondent since 14-11-1971 and at the relevant time, was working as Foreman in the Composing department of the respondent-Newspaper establishment. Prior to January 1981, the composing work of the respondent-Establishment was being carried out by hand composing. However, in january, 1981, the respondent installed photo composing machine, thereby introducing a new technique of rationalisation, standardisation, improvement of plant or technique without giving a notice under section 9a of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 ( I. D. Act , for short ). The respondent completely switched over their work of composing of newspaper on photo composing machine in october, 1981. On 4-11-1981, the respondent transferred the appellant along with other 24 employees to Jalgaon. However, as the appellant and other employees were employed with the respondent, when the respondent was having only one establishment or concern at Nagpur, the services of the appellant and other employees were not transferable and, therefore, a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 ( MRTU and PULP act , for short) was filed before the Industrial court, Nagpur. On the said complaint, initially an interim stay was granted. However, the said order was vacated by the Industrial Court. Therefore, in the petition, which came to be filed before this court, this Court granted stay of transfer order and directed to dispose of the complaint within a period of three months. In the result, the industrial Court decided the complaint on 12-2-1982 in favour of the appellant. The respondent filed Writ Petition No. 630 of 1982, which was admitted by this Court. However, this Court did not issue stay or injunction in favour of the respondent. In the result, the respondent has to accommodate and provide an employment to the appellant at Nagpur. Thus, the attempt to transfer the appellant from Nagpur to Jalgaon failed. In these circumstances, on 25-3-1982, the respondent issued notice to the appellant along with other employees from the Composing Department under section 9a of the I. D. Act, wherein it was informed that as a result of the installation of the photo composing machine, there was no work available with the respondent so as to provide it to appellant and other 24 employees and, therefore, it is proposed to retrench the appellant and other 24 employees. The said notice was opposed by the appellant and the other employees. As there was an industrial dispute, the conciliation Officer i. e. the Labour Commissioner, nagpur, taking the cognizance of the said industrial dispute, admitted and commenced the conciliation proceedings on 16-4-1982. The conciliation proceedings thus initiated, failed before the Conciliation Officer on 22-6-1982 at about 4 p. m. and on the same day, i. e. on 22-6-1982, the appellant along with other 24 employees were retrenched by the respondent following the provisions of section 25f of the I. D. Act. The conciliation Officer submitted his report to the government on 13-8-1982 and the Government made a reference under section 10 of the I. D. Act to industrial Tribunal on 25-8-1982. Meanwhile, immediately after the order of retrenchment was passed by the respondent, the appellant filed a complaint under section 28 read with Items 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the MRTU and pulp Act before the Labour Court, Nagpur, on 25-6-1982. Thus, on the date when the Government made a reference under section 10 of the I. D. Act, a complaint under section 28 of the MRTU and PULP act, as stated above, challenging the retrenchment of the appellant, was pending before the Labour court. The respondent, therefore, raised an objection under section 59 of the MRTU and PULP act, thereby the said objection was accepted by the Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur, and, therefore, a reference made by the Government under section 10 of the I. D. Act was disposed of under section 59 of the MRTU and PULP Act. In the result, the complaint filed by the appellant on 25-6-1982 survived. The said complaint was decided by the labour Court, Nagpur on 30-1-1990. The respondent filed a revision petition against the said order under section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act. The said revision petition was dismissed on 20-11-1990. As stated above, therefore, Writ Petition no. 70 of 1991 was filed by the respondent from which the present letters patent appeal arises.

(3.) THE main question that arises for consideration of this Court is to consider the validity of the order of retrenchment issued by the respondent on 22-6-1982 by which the services of the appellant were terminated on the ground of rationalisation or improvement of plant or technique in the light of the provisions of MRTU and PULP Act and more specifically under Items 1 (a), (b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the said act.