AMARSEY DAMODAR Vs. RASHTRIYA COTTON KAMGAR GENERAL UNION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitions deal with the termination of services of Manohar B. Vibhute and Baban D. Avad (for convenience they will be henceforth referred to as "the workmen"). (Henceforth, the petitioner in Writ petition No. 6190 of 1996 will be referred to as "the management" and the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1997 will be referred to as "the Union"). Vibhute was appointed by the management on 1-4-1984. According to the management, Vibhute was employed as an Upcountry Clerk by them on 1-10-1984 while Avad was appointed as a Peon. The Union has contended that vibhute was employed as "ankdawala" and Avad was employed as "number marker".

(2.) On 31-5-1986, letters were issued by the management to both the workmen informing them that the management had decided to reduce its local cotton business and consequently their services would stand terminated on 30-6-1986. However, the management offered to accommodate them in its sister concern from 1-7-1986 at the same salary which was being paid to them. It was made clear that, if the workmen did not wish to join the sister concern, their services would be retrenched w. e. f. 30-6-1986. According to the management, the workmen signed the letters and returned them indicating their acceptance of the offer made by the management to accommodate them in their sister concern. It is the case of the management that the workmen stopped reporting for duty from 20-6-1986. The workmen did not report for work with the sister concern of the management on 1-7-1986.

(3.) A demand was raised by the Union on behalf of the workmen for their reinstatement in service. After the conciliation proceedings failed, the demand was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. A statement of claim was filed by the Union on behalf of the workmen wherein it was contended that they were working as Ankdawala and Number Marker, respectively. It was also pleaded that the management has terminated their services on 30-6-1986 without following the due process of law. The Union also mentioned in their statement of claim that the workmen were paid wages at a lower rate than their entitlement. It was contended that the workmen were covered by a settlement which was entered into between the Bombay Cotton Merchants and Muccadams' association and the Union. The Union contended that the services of the workmen had been terminated without following the provisions of section 25f of the Industrial Disputes Act.