- (1.) THIS is a petition by unsuccessful workman whose dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected by the learned Labour Court, Udaipur.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the petition stated briefly are that the petitioner was a workman employed in Raw and Finishing Production Pvt. Limited Company from February 17, 1977. According to the petitioner, his services were terminated from May 1, 1981. It would be necessary in the context of the present case to note verbatim, the averments and claim of the petitioner in this regard. The respondents started resenting petitioner's claim of regularisation and got annoyed with the petitioner and consequently, without any information effected removal of the petitioner from service with effect from May 1, 1981. According to the petitioner therefore, the employer effected removal of the petitioner from service. According to the workman therefore, it is the positive act of removal of the petitioner by respondents which creates the cause of action. It is then alleged that this removal was in violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and therefore, the petitioner is liable to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. The petitioner was non-suited by the learned Labour Court on the ground that the petitioner has abandoned the service and it is not a case of termination of service by the employer. This award is impugned in this petition by the petitioner workman.
(3.) SHRI R. S. Saluja appearing on behalf of the petitioner assailed the award as illegal (sic) and unsustainable as the definition of word "retrenchment" in the Industrial Disputes Act is incorrectly appreciated by the learned Labour Court. Since the question as to what is meant by word "retrenchment" often comes for consideration before this Court, it would be proper, if the definition is considered in detail and case law attending the subject is scrutinised.;