LAWS(BOM)-1994-10-20

G D SHINDE Vs. ASSOCIATED CEMENT COS LTD

Decided On October 19, 1994
G.D.SHINDE. Appellant
V/S
ASSOCIATED CEMENT COS.LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India impugns an order of the First Labour Court, Thane, dated 31st July, 1987 made in Complaint (ULP) No. 22 of 1984, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ).

(2.) THE petitioner applied to the First Respondent for appointment as a Watchman in its service. After a successful interview by the Recruitment Committee, the First Respondent, by a letter of appointment dated 16th October, 1976, appointed the petitioner as a Watchman temporarily for a period of three months from 1st October, 1976. The basic salary payable at that time was Rs. 275/- per months in addition to the Dearness Allowance payable under the applicable rules. By a letter dated 2nd January, 1978, the petitioner, was confirmed in service as a watchman with effect from 1st January, 1978 and was fitted in the CATAD Grade 'f' with effect from 1st June, 1978, in the Category of Watchman. It is the case of the petitioner that, even while he was working as a Watchman, he was occasionally required to do some driving work, for which he was paid an additional allowance. The First Respondent had issued a Notice dated 8th February, 1982, calling for applications from suitable persons for appointment to the post of a Vehicle Driver. The petitioner applied for this post, was selected and appointed as Vehicle Driver on probation for a period of 6 months with effect from 18th October, 1982. He was transferred to the Chemical Division Offices located at the Central Research Station. Thane, with effect from 18th October, 1982. At the time of appointment as a Vehicle Driver, the petitioner was given the same basic salary which he was drawing as a Watchman i. e. , Rs. 358/- per month. His letter of appointment contained a specific stipulation that, with effect rom 15th June, 1982, the petitioner would be appointed on probation of 6 months and would be confirmed in his new position only on satisfactory completion of the probationary period. The first respondent had stipulated that it reserved the right to extend the probationary period or to revert the petitioner to his substantive position in the event of his work being found not satisfactory during the probationary period. By a letter of confirmation dated 15th December, 1982, upon satisfactory completion of probationary period, the petitioner was confirmed as a Vehicle Driver with effect from 15th December, 1982 on an increased salary of Rs. 350/- per month in CATAD Grade 'e'. On 1st November, 1983, the First Respondent displayed the Seniority List of several categories of workmen, including drivers. The reason for display of the Seniority List was that the First Respondent envisaged a situation of retrenchment and desired to comply with the provisions of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes Rules, 1987, requiring display of the Seniority List at lest one week before the intended date of retrenchment. In the Seniority List of Vehicle Drivers, the petitioner was at Serial No. 5, as he was the junior-most. His date of joining in the category was shown as 15th June, 1982, the date on which he had been promoted to the category of Vehicle Driver on probation.

(3.) ON 8th November, 1983, the petitioner retrenched a number of workmen in different categories. From the category of vehicle drivers, the first respondent retrenched two drivers - the petitioner and one driver immediately senior to him.