BLOW PLAST LIMITED Vs. NAFISA SHABBIR HUSSAIN MASHRAQUI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition involves question of interpretation of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity, as "the said Act, 1947") as applicable to the facts of the present case.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the writ petition, briefly are as follows :

(3.) SHRI Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the Company contends that on the facts of the above case, in view of the undertaking given by Nafisa in April 1984, the Company was authorised to terminate her services on 26th July 1984 when she did not report for work as per her undertaking. According to Shri Naik, the above facts clearly indicate that Nafisa had relinquished her right to employment. According to Shri Naik the Company had acted on the basis of the said undertaking after giving full opportunity to Nafisa. According to Shri Naik the alleged letter of termination cannot be construed to be an overt act of termination on the part of the employer. According to Shri Naik, the letter dated 4th September 1984 only intimated to Nafisa that in view of the above facts, the Company was entitled to act upon the undertaking given by her in April 1984. According to Shri Naik, on facts and circumstances of the present case, to which I have referred to hereinabove in detail, the present matter involves a case of relinquishment and in the circumstances, the provisions of section 25-F of the said Act, 1947 is not attracted and the Labour Court erred in granting reinstatement on the ground that the Company was guilty of breach of section 25-F of the said Act, 1947. Shri Naik, however, conceded that time to report for work stood extended upto 30th July 1984 because the letter addressed to the Company from Netherlands by Nafisa on 17th July 1984 was received by the Management only on 30th July 1984. In this connection, Shri Naik placed reliance on Para 3 of the Written Statement filed by the Company before the Labour Court. In the alternative, he contended that in any event, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that Nafisa was guilty of misconduct. He contended that in view of the said finding, section 25-F was not attracted. He further contended that in any event, every breach of section 25-F of the said Act does not necessarily warrant reinstatement and in appropriate cases, the Labour Court is entitled to refuse reinstatement even though it finds that the Company has committed breach of section 25-F of the said Act, 1947.