DECISION This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court by which the petition under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969 came to be dismissed. The facts forming the background of this case in a nut shell are as follows.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Cone Winder in the respondent-Mills on 7-1-1970 and in due course was promoted as a Jobber. On 9-5-1991 when he came to be retrenched he had been holding the post of a Head Jobber. The order for the retrenchment was in the following words: "As a measure and the interest of economy; efficiency and reorganization the post of Head Jobber of Winding department has been abolished. Consequently your services have become redundant and surplus to the requirement of the factory and are no longer needed. It is, therefore regretted to inform you that your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect. You may collect your legal dues, if any, together with one month salary in lieu of notice from the Office on any working day during working hours:"
The petitioner had sent a Grievance Notice on 16-6-1991 which was replied to and as there was no word of comfort for the petitioner he filed a Grievance Application before the Labour Court. .
3. The petition came to be resisted inter alia on the ground that the petitioner was not a workman and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. In this very context it might be mentioned that on 21-3-1987 the petitioner had been given a charge-sheet for collecting a band of workers and raising slogans against the mill. Some evidence had also been led during the course of enquiry but the matter had remained pending for well nigh four years. The pendency of the charge-sheet was admitted in the written statement It was, however, alleged that the enquiry held was not complete. However it is irrelevant in the context of the present matter. Paragraph 14 of the written reply had tire following to say: "The enquiry could not be completed due to indifferent attitude of the applicant. He applicant was sent on special leave which carried no adverse in tension: "
4. The petitioner was his own witness and Abdul Aziz, the Manager of the Mill, appeared on behalf of the respondents.
5. The Labour Court found that the petitioner was not a workman and the action taken against him was in order since the post had been abolished resulting in this appeal.
6. The respondent evinced no interest in this appeal right from the beginning. On 25-4-1953 Abdul Aziz, their Manager, was present in Court but thereafter no body turned up though the matter was adjourned on a number of dates. There was no Counsel to represent them either. There is no point in keeping the matter pending any longer and I have heard Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi for the appellant only.
7. As would have been noted earlier, the appellant had been served with a charge-sheet, for misconduct, and had remained awaiting orders thereon till he was retrenched lied. Ostensibly the respondents had treated him as a workman. May be they had a mistaken view of the matte, and there is also no estoppel against law. However there is nothing to show that the respondent had even attempted to shift the burden after the appellant had enumerated the nature of his duties.
There is also nothing like `job description' coming from the respondent side. It cannot, therefore, Le said that the burden, which had been shifted on the respondent, had been discharged. I am, therefore, clearly of the opinion that the petitioner was a workmen and the petition filed by him was not open to any objection.
8. Admittedly the appellant was the President of the C.BA at the time the axe fell on him. The record shows that he was the President of the Union for about nine years. That he was on eye sore to the respondent cannot be a matter of doubt. He had been kept under suspension for 28 days when he was served with charge-sheet in 1987. Thereafter he was being paid his wages, and sit at home.
The fact that he was not allowed to step into the Mill area and still being paid his wages for years speaks for itself.
9. It is also made out by Abdul Aziz that there was no other retrenchment in the factory and the only abolition of post in this so-called measure of economy, as stated on behalf of the respondent, was the job being held by the appellant. Obviously the retrenchment, under the circumstances, was a colourable exercise of authority and far from being bona fide.
10. As a result, in my humble opinion, the retrenchment was un--warranted and the impugned order cannot be sustained. The impugned order is therefore vacated and the appeal is allowed.