- (1.) REVERSAL of the order dated 6-7-1988 passes by the Labour Court, Amravati in Complaint (ULP) No. 7/85 at the hands of the Industrial Court, Amravati on 23-1-1989 in Revision (ULP) No. 76/88 has given rise to the present writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioner Prakash Murlidhar Dalal (for short, the complainant-workman) was initially appointed by the order dated January 2, 1978 issued by the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited, Sales Office, 148, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Bombay-23 (for short, the employer-company) on probation for a period of one year as Watchman at Amravati Regional Sales Office on a basic salary of Rs. 135/- in the pay-scale of Rs. 75-5-150 plus dearness allowance payable in accordance with the rules of the employer-company. According to the terms of appointment the service of the complainant-workman was governed by the employer-companys rules and regulations in force for the time being and further amended from time to time and was transferable to any of the employer-companys establishments situated in any part of India. After completion of probation period, the employer-company by an order dated 22-2-1979 confirmed the complainant-workman in the post of Watchman. On 10th Oct, 1984, the complainant-workman was informed by the employer-company that as a result of closure of Regional Sales Office at Amravati, the service of the complainant-workman has become surplus to its requirement and accordingly, with effect from 15-10-1984, after duty hours, he would stand relieved from service. Along with the said communication dated 10-10-1984, one months pay in lieu of notice, retrenchment compensation @ 15 days per each completed year of service, ex-gratia payment, gratuity, provident fund, pension fund and net pay for 15 days of Oct 84, in all amounting to Rs. 18,583. 26 by way of two cheques dated 9-10-1984 were enclosed. The complainant-workman took up the matter of his retrenchment/termination by filing a complaint under section 7 read with section 28 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, ULP Act of 1971) before the Labour Court, Amravati. The grounds set up in the complaint were:-that the complainant-workman was senior-most employee having experience of more than 7-9 years and other employees who were junior to him were retained in employment by the employer-company; that employer-company was big company having its registered office and sales office at Bombay and works at Jamshedpur and Pune (Pimpri) and having its Regional Offices at Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi, Madras and Zonal Offices and Sales Offices at various other places under the authority and control by Bombay Sales Office; that as per the terms and conditions of employment, the complainant-workman was liable to be transferred to any of the employer-companys establishments situated in any part of the country; that the Regional Sales Office, in fact, has not been closed at Amravati, but its operation has been transferred to other places and other employees and four other watchmen who were working with the complainant-workman at Amravati Regional Sales Office were transferred at other places; that there were vacancies in employer-companys other establishments situated at other parts of the country like Allahabad. New Spare Parts Shop at Nagpur, new establishment at Daman and other places; that the retrenchment compensation was not properly computed and not paid for the years 1976 to 1-1-1978 during which period the complainant-workman had worked on daily wages and that the employer-company being very big company and is carrying on business at various places in the country, can easily continue service of the complainant-workman.
(3.) THE employer-company filed Written Statement before the Labour Court and admitted the facts regarding the employment and appointment of the workman, but as regards termination, reiterated the reason asserted in the termination order that termination of the complainants services was on account of surplusage resulting from closure of the Regional Sales Office at Amravati. The employer-company denied that the complainant-workman was the senior-most amongst the watchmen employed by the employer-company at its Regional Sales Office, Amravati and that any other watchman junior to the complainant-workman was retained; that the two other watchmen who were senior to the complainant-workman at Regional Sales Office, Amravati were absorbed at Karnal and Allahabad, but the complainant-workman could not be absorbed since there was no other vacancy; that there was no vacancy in the employer-companys any establishment elsewhere in the country where the services of the complainant-workman could have been considered; the rule, last come, first go was strictly observed and scrupulously followed; that the Regional Sales Offices of the employer-company in different parts of the country do not constitute one establishment nor a single unit and each Regional Sales Office of the employer-company is distinct Industrial Establishment and the said Regional Sales Offices have no functional integrality either amongst themselves or with the Sales Office at Bombay; that the persons working at Amravati Regional Sales Office at the time of closure, as far as possible, were absorbed, but the complainant-workman could not be absorbed for want of vacancy any-where else and that the proper compensation was paid to the workman at the time of retrenchment/termination. Thus, the employer-company submitted before the Labour Court that the complaint filed by the complainant-workman be dismissed.;