PUTHIYA VEETIL RAGHAVAN Vs. M K BHASKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent as the Stores Delivery Clerk on 1st December, 1973. His services came to be terminated by a letter dated 31st December, 1981. The relevant portion of the letter of termination reads as under:

(2.) In the Statement of Claim, the case of the petitioner was that he was victimised for his trade union, activates as a result of which his services were terminated in a colourable exerci -se of management powers on false and concocted grounds. He also contended that, in any event, as per the letter of termination, it was a simple discharge which amounted to retrenchment and since the provisions of Section 25F of the Act were not satisfied the retrenchment was invalid.

(3.) The case of the first respondent as per the Written Statement was that the services of the petitioner were terminated by way of discharge simpliciter. It was also contended on his behalf that the petitioner was doing an executive job and, therefore, was not a "workman" as defined under Section 2(s) of the Act. A contention was also raised that in view of the closure of the establishment of the first respondent the Reference was not maintainable in law.