NATIONAL ENGINEERING EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. KULKARNI R N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Saple was in the employment of respondent 2 company which is a private limited company. On 28 February, 1961, the management made an order in the first instance terminating his services on and from that date as the charge-hand, but having regard to his prior career, gave him an option of serving as a mechanic in the garage department at the same salary that he was getting on that date. The option had to be exercised by Saple by 9 March, 1961. The union took this matter up and raised a dispute and eventually on 24 April, 1962, the State Government referred the matter to the labour court. It appears that during the course of evidence, the learned labour judge made an order on 6 April, 1965, directing the company and the union to submit their arguments on a preliminary point raised by the learned judge. This point was raised by the learned labour judge because of some correspondence which was produced before him which appeared to him to suggest that the worker had exercised his option given to him by the order, Ex. C, the question to be argued being whether under the circumstances the order can be regarded as a discharge simpliciter. This point was argued and the learned judge held that the order in fact amounted to an order of demotion, and not an order of discharge through it was obvious from the correspondence that in fact the worker did not resume his duties in the department where he was offered employment and was not in service then. Apparently, though it is called an order, this second order is really a finding and he directed that further inquiry should continue on the question whether the order Ex. C was made mala fide.

(2.) It is contended, by Sri Bhatkal that the order obviously is not an order of demotion as found by the learned judge and his finding is erroneous. On behalf of the respondent, Sri Vimadalal raised two technical points :

(3.) It is difficult to reconcile both these grounds. Now, it is true that the finding was made by the learned judge on 7 June, 1965 and the petition is filed on 1 October, 1965, and four months have gone by before the petition is filed in this Court. Undoubtedly, there is delay in coming to the Court on the finding made by the learned judge. On the other hand, after making that finding no further action was taken in the matter. In any event, now the matter is before the Court and as we are of the view that the order is not justified, we do not see why we should not set aside that order.