THE CHAIRMAN, SAKHAR KAMGAR NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD., THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN Vs. SANJAY SHAHAJIRAO PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Revision by an employer challenging legality of a judgment and order passed in complaint (ULP) No. 59/97 by Labour Court, Sangli whereby, he is directed to reinstate his employee with continuity of service and full back wages. Admittedly, present Respondent (hereinafter referred to as the Complainant) started working with the present Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Credit Society) as a trainee clerk from 23rd April, 1991. The Credit Society then served retrenchment order dated 9th June, 1997 on him by registered post acknowledgement due on 10th June 1997 retrenching him after office hours on 9th June, 1997. A Demand Draft of Rs. 7310 dated 9th June, 1997 was tendered along with the retrenchment order. Admittedly, the Complainant received said order on 10th June, 1997.

(2.) THE Complainant then filed above complaint on 23rd June 1997 before the Labour Court, Sangli, inter -alia contending that he was doing work of perennial nature, The Credit Society is running into profits for past several years and its financial condition is sound. It paid increasing dividends from 12% to 15% for past several years and its lending capacity increasing day by day. Thus, ample work is still available with the society. In fact, staff working under the society is basically inadequate and nobody was surplus. However, the Society intended to appoint a person of its, choice in his place and therefore, terminated his services under the grab of retrenchment. The society tender payment of Rs. 7310 to him, terminated his services after office hours on 9th June, 1997. However, he did not encashed demand draft of Rs. 7310 as was aggrieved. Thus, in the eyes of law, he is illegally terminated by way of victimisation. Reasons in support of alleged retrenchment are patently false and thus, the termination is not in good faith but in the colorable exercise of employer's right for patently false reasons.

(3.) IT is further alleged by the Complainant that assuming but not admitting that he is retrenched, the Society has not complied with provisions of sub -clause (c) of Sec. 25 of the I.D. Act. Eventually, retrenchment is illegal and void basically for non -compliance of the clause (c).