ASHOK KELWADE Vs. VIDARBHA GAS VESSELS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioners workmen have challenged the judgment and order dated 24.2.2003, made by the Member of Industrial Court, Nagpur in Revision ULPN No.156/2002, by which the learned Industrial Court reversed the judgment and order made by the Labour Court, Nagpur and dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioners.

(2.) The petitioners workmen who are the original complainants filed Complaint ULP No.752/1998 in 3rd Labour Court, Nagpur. In the complaint they averred that the respondent industry manufacturers LPG accessories etc. in the factory at M.I.D.C., Nagpur since 1984. On 28.7.1998 the respondent issued an order retrenching the complainants for the reasons that there was severe recession in the market on accumulation of stock putting the respondent in financial difficulties. On 30.7.1998 when the workers reported for duty, they were told that they were retrenched. They approached the labour Court vide Complaint U.L.P. No.452/1998, in which the Labour Court after hearing both sides on 31.8.1998 allowed the application under Section 30 (2) of the Maharashtra Recognition Of Trade Unions And Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, directing their reinstatement in service and complaint remained pending. Accordingly, the complainants were allowed to attend the duties in the premises of the respondent Company, but were kept idle nor were paid any wages. On 18.9.1998 the respondent issued second retrenchment notice and affixed the same on the notice board of the Company, stating therein that all the petitioners were being retrenched w.e.f. 18.9.19998 and that the retrenchment compensation and dues were kept ready with the accounts office and should be collected forthwith on that day itself. This retrenchment notice was admittedly not served on all complainants individually on or before 18.9.1998 nor the retrenchment compensation was paid on the same day. The respondent employer stated in the retrenchment notice that seniority list was displayed but there was no mention about the withdrawal of the earlier retrenchment order dated 28.7.1998 nor any permission was sought from the Labour Court to take action of retrenchment for the second time. The respondent has contravened the provisions of Section 25-F and 25-G and Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rules. The respondent was estopped from issuing second retrenchment order in the above background. It was then averred in the complaint that the reason alleged by the respondent was that there were no orders from Indian Oil Corporation with the Company and that there was financial crisis. On the contrary, new workers were engaged and those who were working were granted over time and additional shift for extra four hours was commenced. This clearly demonstrated that work was available. It was then stated that there were 135 employees working with the respondent since one year and therefore the provisions of Chapter V-B were applicable but before issuing retrenchment order three months notice was not given and the retrenchment was in violation of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act. The respondent appeared before the Labour Court and filed its written statement. The material allegations made in the complaint were denied. It was stated that all the dues of the workers were duly paid even for the period from 28.7.1998 till the date of second retrenchment on 18.9.1998. The seniority list was properly published. There was compliance of Section 25-F, Section 25-G and Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rules. The respondent Company never engaged 100 workers as alleged and the provisions of Chapter V-B were not applicable. There was a genuine reason for retrenchment inasmuch as there was decrease in the supply orders from Indian Oil Corporation, who was the prime consumer of L.P.G. valves because of their change in policy of purchasing valves on pre-settled rate from the established companies, which situation became piquant and there was hardly any orders with the Company. The petitioners examined C.W. 1 Devendra Gopalrao Ballad, C.W.2 Mohan Dhakare and C.W.3 Rajendra Dhole Labour Officer. The respondent examined Raju Hukumchand Jain, its Director. The learned Labour Court heard parties and after appreciation of evidence came to the conclusion that there was no compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and the reason given for termination was patently false. He held that the respondent did not engage 100 workers and, therefore, Chapter V-B of the Act did not have application. As a sequel he held termination dated 18.9.1998 to be the result of unfair labour practice and directed reinstatement of the petitioners with continuity of service and full back wages. The respondent employer challenged the said judgment and order in Revision U.L.P. No.156/2002 which was heard by the Industrial Court which ultimately allowed the same holding that the employer had made all compliances of the mandatory provisions and the termination was legal and proper. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Advocate Shri C.V. Jagdale for the petitioners made the following submissions :