ALEX FERNANDES OF BOMBAY Vs. N A KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-workman challenges the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra State, Thane, in reference (IT) No. 45 of 1978, on 31st January, 1983.

(2.) The petitioner was employed by the second respondent-company, Billion Plastics Private Limited, having their office at the 9th floor, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Bombay-400 021, as a draughtsman since the year 1966 on a monthly salary of Rs. 125/-. In 1967, he was taken up as a member of the staff and was designated as supervisor-cum-operator which reduced his salary to Rs. 100/- per month. According to him, he was the seniormost workman in the category of the supervisor-cum-operator. He contended that he was ill from 15th September, 1974 to 15th December, 1975 and was, therefore, absent from duties. He was, however, sending medical certificates by hand delivery. And he resumed his duties, after his illness from 19th December, 1975. But the company wrongfully and illegally retrenched him on 6th June, 1977 in contravention of the provisions of Section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without following the doctrine of 'last come first go'. He also contended that his retrenchment was bad in law and void ab-initio since it was done in violation of the provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Act in as much as he was not paid retrenchment compensation for every completed year of continuous service.

(3.) The contention of the company was that the petitioner was in their services from 1966 to 1974. Thereafter he remained absent for a period of 15 months and had neither reported sick not had taken leave and as such his services had come to an end. However, on his request he was reemployed all afresh from 15th December, 1975 and when his services were terminated by a letter dated 6th June, 1977 he was correctly paid retrenchment compensation for a period of one year's completed and continuous service and as such they had not violated the provisions of Section 25F(b) of the Act. It was also contended on behalf of the company that the petitioner having been reemployed all afresh he had become junior to his erstwhile colleagues and, therefore, in retrenching him the provisions of Section 25G were not violated as the doctrine of 'last come first go' would not be applicable in this case.