9911796707
TMI Blog1959 (5) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chment for which the discharged employee was entitled to compensation at the statutory rate. He, therefore, allowed him compensation under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act by ordering (1) one month's notice pay at the rate last drawn; (2) four months' pay i.e. 15 days' average pay for each completed year of service; and (3) admitted dues on account of unpaid salary according to the Company's written statement, i.e. ₹ 47/10/6 pies. 2. On behalf of the petitioner, this award is challenged on the ground that the period of service taken from 1947 has not been correct. The petitioner joined the business of Alex. A. Apcar (Junior) and Co. in 1951. He was, therefore, not liable for the workman's service in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng to do with the present dispute. The Tribunal relied on a material evidence which was a certificate marked Ex. A which shows that the respondent workman was with this business since 1947 I am, therefore, not satisfied that there has been any transfer of business in the sense to attract the operation of Section 25FF. 3. It was contended that on a reading of Section 25F, the continuous service mentioned there was to be not less than one year under a single employer. It was, therefore, argued that as the employer was changed by the constitution, re-constitution and dissolution of the Firm, converting it to a sole proprietorship business, therefore, this section operated as a bar for awarding any retrenchment compensation to the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to the decision of the case of Kay's Construction Co. v. Its Workmen, AIR 1959 SC 208. At page 210, there are observations which support the view which I am taking. 4. The petitioner at one stage tried to urge that retrenchment was not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal but later gave it up. That must be recorded with this statement that the petitioner's own case before the Tribunal was that the driver was unwilling to stay and resigned from his job by handing over the key of the car and went away. That certainly makes it come under retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (00) of the Act. I do not think the petitioner can be heard now to contend otherwise. 5. For these reasons, the petition must be dismissed an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
