M/S. MAC TAILORS, FEIRA ALTO, MAPUSA, GOA Vs. SMT. FILOMENA FERNANDES, NEAR ST. ANTHONY HIGH SCHOOL, KARASWADO
LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-284
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 30,2017

M/S. Mac Tailors, Feira Alto, Mapusa, Goa Appellant
VERSUS
Smt. Filomena Fernandes, Near St. Anthony High School, Karaswado Respondents

JUDGEMENT

C. V. Bhadang, J. - (1.) Both these petitions are between the same parties and can be conveniently disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner M/s. Mac Tailors is a tailoring shop of which Mr. Joseph Pereira is the sole proprietor and is represented by his duly constituted Attorney Mr. Peter Rodrigues. The petitioner is engaged in tailoring business specialized in stitching of gents clothes. According to the petitioner, there are two regular skilled tailors employed in the shop, namely Mr. Assis Rodrigues and Mr. Peter Rodrigues. In the peak season, the petitioner is also engaging the services of some casual part time skilled tailors on contract basis, namely Vincent Rodrigues and Mr. Rama Kalangutkar, who used to work from their residence. According to the petitioner, besides skilled tailors, the petitioner was also employing "helpers" for doing petty unskilled jobs of hemming, ironing, stitch marking as per the designer's chalk markings, button stitching, pocket stitching, zip attaching, etc. According to the petitioner, the first respondent was employed as a helper on a casual and temporary basis and she used to work according to exigency of work. It is contended that she never worked on regular basis.
(3.) On 15/05/1992, the first respondent had a spat with another co-employee, lady helper by name Ms. Casilda Lobo, upon which, the first respondent asked for payment of her dues, which were promptly paid to her. According to the petitioner, the first respondent did not report back to work from 16/05/1992 onwards and has abandoned the service. The first respondent raised a dispute before the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 01/06/1992, claiming that her services were illegally terminated. During the conciliation proceedings, the petitioner gave a written offer to the first respondent to report back to work. However, the first respondent did not report back to work. Instead, the first respondent raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Industrial Court being Reference IT No.11/1994. The petitioner claimed that she was employed as a Tailor and not as a Helper and her services were terminated on 15/05/1992, after which, she was not allowed to report back to work. The Industrial Court, by an Award dated 04/07/2007, has held that the action of the petitioner in terminating the services of the first respondent, is not legal and justified and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the first respondent was employed as a Tailor. The said Award dated 04/07/2007 is subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.598/2007.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.