SEARSOLE CHEMICALS LIMITED Vs. H C SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent filed application (IDA) No. 928 of 1979 before the 8th Labour Court, Bombay presided over by the second respondent Labour Judge under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") claiming his dues as under:

(2.) His contention was that he was working as Area Sales Organiser with the petitioner company and the third respondent-company from 22nd September, 1975 till his services were terminated with effect from 26th March, 1979, and as such he was entitled to the dues enumerated hereinabove. His application was resisted by the petitioner-company and the third respondent-company. It was the case of the third respondent-company that the first respondent was never in their employment. This contention was accepted by the learned Labour Judge and it was specifically held that he was not in the employment of third respondent-company at all. However, the petitioner-company raised two contentions in its defence opposing the application under Section 33C(Z) of the Act that the Labour Court had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the application and secondly, the first respondent was not a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act. The learned Labour Judge rejected both these contentions of the petitioner company and also rejected the major portion of the claim preferred by the first respondent but granted his claim for retrenchment compensation amounting to Rs. 2,962.50 by his judgment and order dated 25th October, 1982 which has been impugned in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner-company.

(3.) The first respondent was served with a notice before admission but he did not remain present in this Court at that time. After recording that fact this Court (Bharucha, J.) issued rule nisi and also granted interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b) of the petition by an order dated 26th April, 1983. Thereafter, the first respondent was once again served with rule nisi regarding which an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner-company of a Clerk and Special Bailiff by name M.V. Parab in the office of Sheriff of Bombay. And despite the service of rule nisi on the first respondent, for the reasons best known to him, he has remained absent in this Court at the time of hearing of this writ petition.