KHEMCHAND MOTILAL JAIN Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Misc. Petition No. 987/1990 (Khemchand Motilal Jain v. Appellate Authority under Beedi and Cigar Act and another) and Misc. Petition No. 978/1990 (Khemchand Motilal Jain v. Appellate Authority under Beedi and Cigar Act and another).

(2.) The respondent No. 2 of each petition preferred appeal to the appellate authority and Assistant Labour Commissioner, Sagar Division, Sagar appointed under Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) inter alia pleading that the present petitioners/employer by playing unfair trade practise terminated their services and as their termination was contrary to the principles of law, therefore, they were entitled to be reinstated with the back wages. The case of Respondent Kale Khan was registered as Appeal No. 157/1987 while the case of respondent Gul Khai was registered as Appeal No. 37/1988. Each of the employee in his appeal submitted that they were working with the establishment for long time and the petitioner to terminate their services by playing unfair trade practice created a situation where the respondent/employee was unable to meet the illegal demand of his transfer and join at a different place were forced to abandon the work. Each of the employee submitted that the order of transfer dated February 25, 1985 was illegal and as certain conciliation proceedings were going on they were prevented from filing the appeal within limitation.

(3.) The petitioner/employer submitted before the appellate authority that each was not a case of retrenchment, removal, termination or dismissal but was a case of transfer and as each of the employee did not join at the transferred place and abandoned the work, provisions of Section 31 of Beedi and Cigar Workers Act were not applicable. It was also contended that appeal against the order of alleged dismissal was required to be filed within 30 days in accordance with the rules but in case of Kale Khan the appeal was preferred almost after two years ten months and in case of Gul Khai it was filed after three years and six months therefore each appeal was patently barred by limitation and none of the employee was entitled to any relief.