CENTRAL INDIA AGENCIES CALCUTTA Vs. LAXMINATH BRIJKISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution is directed against an order of the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, dated 3 January, 1966, whereby the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner were overruled.

(2.) THE petitioner is a partnership firm, with its head office at Calcutta and a branch at Nagpur. On 1 June, 1964, the petitioner firm appointed respondent 1 as a salesman on probation, at a consolidated salary of Rs. 400 per month. Finding that the service of the respondent was not to its satisfaction, the firm gave repeated warnings to the respondent to show some improvement. Being of the view that he had not shown any improvement despite warnings given to him the petitioner did not confirm him and by the letter, dated 10 February, 1965, informed him that his services were no longer required. He was called upon to clear his accounts and to receive payment of all his dues from the petitioner. Respondent 1 did not accept that his work was unsatisfactory and filed his application under S. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, for reinstatement and backwages before the Labour Commissioner on 6 August, 1965.

(3.) THE petitioner filed its preliminary objections to the maintainability of this application on the ground that the central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, was repealed with effect from 1 May, 1965 by the Bombay Industrial Relations (Extension and Amendment) Act, 1964 (Maharashtra Act 22 of 1965 ). On being called upon to furnish better particulars with regard to these preliminary objections, the petitioner filed its better particulars on 20 December, 1965. The objection of the petitioner was that the right of the respondent to claim reinstatement and back-wages was not saved by the saving clause in S. 123a as added to the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, by the Maharashtra Act 22 of 1965, and, therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed. The Assistant Commissioner of Labour overruled these objections and held that the application by the respondent under S. 16 of the Central Provinces and Berar Industrial Disputes Settlement Act, 1947, was maintainable. The correctness and legality of that order are the subject-matter of challenge in the petition.