9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1974, the petitioners served notices of retrenchment on the respondents and along with the notice tendered the wages under the Minimum Wages Act. The notice of retrenchment states that the services stands terminated with effect from May 10, 1974. The respondents feeling aggrieved by the action of the employer raised a demand for reinstatement with full back-wages on June 16, 1974, and having failed to secure that sought a reference. The proceedings were referred to the 7th Labour Court at Bombay on December 19, 1974 the respondents claim that the employer was guilty of victimisation and had terminated the employment of the respondents, inspite of the fact that sufficient work was, available The respondents claim that the employer violated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Article 226 of the Constitution of India on August 13, 1979. 4. Shri Shetye, learned counsel appearing in support of the petition, submitted that the finding of the Labour Court that the termination of services of the workmen was in contravention of Section 25F of the Act is not correct. The learned counsel urged that the notices of termination were served on the three workmen on May, 1974 and along with notices the salaries and the retrenchment compensation were offered and thereby the conditions of Section 25F of the Act were complied with. The Tribunal recorded finding against the petitioners on the ground that the notice of termination recites that the termination was effected from May 10, 1974 and, therefore, the tender of retrenchm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the finding of the Labour Court that the provisions of Section 25G of the Act were not complied with is also incorrect. It was also urged that the two Units of the Petitioners firm were distinct and different establishments and retrenchment of the workmen from one of the establishments would not attract the principle of last come first go. Shri Shetye submits that the three respondents were the only employees working as polishers in Anjirwadi establishment and the employment of all the three workmen was terminated. Shri Puri, on the other hand, points out that both the Units of the petitioner firm constituted one industrial establishment and the retrenchment ought to have been effected on the principle contained in Section 25-G o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... G of the Act is correct and deserves acceptance. 6. Shri Shetye then submitted that Section 25F of the Act prescribes that the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workmen who were last person to be employed, unless for reasons to be recorded, the employer retrenches any other workmen and this suggests that the retrenchment of a person contrary to the rule would not automatically become null and void but it is possible to uphold it for sound reasons., In this connection, the learned counsel relied upon the decision for the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Om Oil and Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd., Delhi v. Their Workmen A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1657, where the Supreme Court observed that the rule under Section 25G is not immutable and may be departed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
