LAWS(DLH)-1970-2-9

DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SHAMBHU NATH MUKHERJEE

Decided On February 20, 1970
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS COMPANY LIMITED Appellant
V/S
SHAMBHU NATH MUKHERJEE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause 10 ofthe Letters Patent from the judgment of S. Rangarajan J. dated 30/05/1969 dismissing the appellant's petition under Article226 of the Constitution directed against an award made by theLabour Court.

(2.) The material facts are not in dispute. The appellant is apublic limited company. It owns an industrial unit called theSwatantra Bharat Mills at Delhi. Shambhu Math Mukherjiwho will hereafter be referred to as respondent, was a work-manemployed in the said mills. He joined as a Store Coolie in 1951,became Fitter Helper after six months and was promoted afterabout a year as a Motion Setter. In October 1964, the appellant-company introduced a scheme for re-organisation of the WeavingSection of the mills whereby in pursuance of an alleged agreementbetween the work-men and the management, provision wasmade for the appointment of a new category of work-men calledAssistant Line Fixers (Assistants Grade 1) and for the abolitionof the post of Motion Setters. Under that scheme, the respondentalong with some other work-men was placed under training forsix months on probation with effect from 1/10/1964. Hiswork was however not found satisfactory and the period of probation was therefore extended by another three months with effectfrom 1/04/1965. Even after the extended period, his workand conduct were not found upto the mark and as such he couldnot be appointed as Assistant Line Fixer.

(3.) The post of Motion Setter having thus been abolished andthe respondent not having been found eligible for appointmentas Line Fixer, the management offered to him the post of Fitteron the same terms and conditions and emoluments as wereapplicable to him in the post of Motion Setter. It is howevernot disputed that the post of Fitter was otherwise lower thanthat of a Motion Setter. By letter dated 31-7-1965 the respondentwas informed that if he did not agree to work as a Fitter onthe terms and conditions offered to him he would have to beretrenched as the post held by him had been abolished.