DECISION ' These are 5 appeals against the common order of the Labour Court ordering re-instatements of the respondents with full back benefits on applications made under section 25-A, I. R.
0.
2. The respondents were in the permanent employment of the appellant. In April, 1976 the employees of the appellant had formed a Union. So it is said that the Management was annoyed.
The Union raised an industrial dispute and conciliation proceedings were resumed but no settlement was reached. Conciliation proceedings were concluded on 18th August, 1976. On the same date the Management passed an order terminating the services of the respondents and a few others on the ground of the closure of the Packing Department. The letter of the termination was posted on 19th August, 1976 indicating that the termination would come into effect from 24th August, 1976. The respondents had received the letters on 23rd August, 1976.
3. The respondents served grievance notices and then approached the Labour Court making allegations that since the Union was formed, the Management was annoyed and in order to victimize them, their services had been terminated.
4. The applications were resisted and the allegations were denied. It was pleaded that the services were terminated on account of the closure of the Packing Department as the work had decreased.
It was also pleaded that on account of the decrease in the work even previously lay-off was effected.
5. Evidence was tendered by both the parties. On assessment of the evidence the Labour Court rejected the plea raised on behalf of the appellant and ordered re-instatements with full back benefits and continuity in service. Aggrieved by this, the present appeals had been filed.
6. The first ground taken by the learned Labour Court was that the services of the respondents were terminated during the conciliation proceedings and this was in violation of section 47(1) of the I. R 0.
In my view the Labour Court clearly erred in coming to the conclusion that the services of the respondents were terminated during the conciliation proceedings. Admittedly the conciliation proceeding had concluded on 18th August, 1976. It was on the same date that the order of termination of the services of the respondents was passed, but it was posted on the following day, as admitted by the respondents in their grievance notices It seems that after the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings the Management decided to dispense with the services of the respondents and, therefore, letters to that effect were issued. Of course, both the events happened on the same date but the time is an important factor and there is no evidence to show that the letters of termination were issued before the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings.
Consequently, the view taken by the learned Labour Court cannot be supported.
7. The next ground that found favour with the learned Presiding Officer was that the respondents had been victimized on account of their Union activities as they had formed a Union and had raised an industrial dispute. I fully agree with this view. It is pertinent to note that industrial dispute was raised by the workers and suddenly after the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings the Management decided to terminate the services of the respondents and some other workers. This is rather fishy. The ground pleaded by the Management is that the work had decreased and, therefore, the Packing department as closed with the result that the respondents were rendered surplus and their services bad to be terminated. This contention of the appellant goes unsupported. No documentary proof was furnished to substantiate the contention. On the contrary, it is an admitted position that all other departments were working as usual and there were also fresh orders for the supply of the goods manufactured by Management, and, therefore, there could be no question of the closure of the Packing Department. In this connection it is to be noted that no other department was closed to provide a justification for the closure of the Packing Department. I repeat that all other departments worked as usual and, in fact, further production was required to meet fresh orders from the customers. The circumstances clearly establish the fact that the respondents had been victimized on account of their Union activities and their services had been terminated on a false ground. Consequently, the action of the appellant cannot be approved of.
8. Before I conclude, I would like to point out that the learned Representative for the appellant made a grievance that, although, an application was made for further cross-examination of a respondent who had already been examined and cross-examined, but the application was rejected and, therefore, proper opportunity was not allowed to the appellant to produce certain important documents which could not be brought on record earlier because they were not within the knowledge of the appellant. I have gone through the order of the learned Presiding Officer and I find no fault with it. He had given elaborate and cogent reasons in rejecting the application and I see no reason to take a different view.
9. In the result the appeals are dismissed.