INDODAN MILK PRODUCTS LTD Vs. LABOUR COURT
LAWS(ALL)-1991-10-12
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on October 09,1991

INDODAN MILK PRODUCTS LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
LABOUR COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Palok Basu, J. - (1.) The question involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the respondents Jagdish Prasad and Om Pal Singh could be held by the impugned award of the Labour Court dated September 6, 1985 to have been retrenched contrary to the provision contained in the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act and could they on the facts and circumstances of the present case be directed to be reinstated by their employer?
(2.) The short facts are that Indodan Milk Products Ltd, is a company with limited liability registered under the Indian Companies Act with its factory at Muzaffarnagar and produces milk products. It has about 2200 workmen. There was a Route Supervisor Cadre in the Company in which respondents Jagdish Prasad and Om Pal were working since quite sometime past. It is said that the company decided in February 1975, to abolish and discontinue the doing of the business through Route Supervision and instead resorted to engage commission agents who were not to be employees of the petitioner but were independent contractors. Consequently they retrenched all their Route Supervisors including respondents 3 and 4.
(3.) On this point the petitioner's case is that after the aforesaid decision was taken, they sent demand drafts representing one month's notice and retrenchment compensation as required under the law and its officials wanted to effect personal service but the respondents 3 and 4 refused, This attempt to serve and their refusal is said to have been witnessed by the officials of the company. Retrenchment came to be effective from February 6, 1975. Because of the refusal by the respondents 3 and 4 the letter along with a draft representing the pay and retrenchment compensation was sent to them by registered post which again, was refused by the respondents No. 3 and 4 as it contained a remark by the postal authorities that the respondents 3 and 4 were not available at the addresses given though correct address, as noted in the company's records, were noted in the envelopes. Some letters were, again, sent intimating the respondents about their refusal of accepting the registered envelopes.;


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