JUDGMENT - SRIKRISHNA B.N., J.:—This petition impugns an order of the Industrial Court, Nasik, dated 31st July, 1989, made in Complaints (ULP) Nos. 741 to 744 of 1987 under the provisions of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

2. The petitioner is an employer in the Engineering Industry. The respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 were employed as fitters in the factory of the petitioner. The petitioner had a total complement of 37 workmen at all material times. From 1st of April, 1987, the petitioner laid off some of the workmen intermittently. The workmen laid off included respondents 2 to 5. The lay-off was on account of the financial difficulty of the petitioner which continued unabated despite the lay-off. On 8th September, 1987, respondents 2 to 5 were told by the Factory Manager of the petitioner that the financial situation of the petitioner-company was getting worse and, since the lay-off resorted to had not made any discernible improvement in the situation, the petitioner was left with no recourse but to retrench the workmen. Respondents 2 to 5 were the workmen who were to be retrenched. There is some dispute as to whether the retrenchment actually took place on 8th September, 1987 itself. This controversy, however, is irrelevant, inasmuch as it is admitted that, by letters dated 9th September, 1987, despatched by Registered A.D. Post, the petitioner terminated the services of respondents 2 to 5 by way of retrenchment for reasons specifically stated therein. It is also not disputed that, along with each such letter, the petitioner had enclosed bank drafts of what were alleged to be the amounts payable by way of one month's salary in lieu of notice, retrenchment compensation, gratuity and salary for balance of earned wages for the month of August. We are not concerned, in the present petition, with the other amounts, except the retrenchment compensation. Retrenchment compensation was calculated by the petitioner on the basis of the salary that was payable for the month of July, 1987. The petitioner deducted therefrom the amount which had been paid to each of the four workmen as lay-off compensation for the period of the lay-off. On this basis, certain amounts were enclosed by bank drafts along with the letter addressed to each of the four workmen on 9th September, 1987. It is not in dispute that each of these four workmen (respondents 2 to 5) received the said letter, together with the accompanying bank draft on 16th September, 1987. Each one of them encashed the bank draft thereafter. On 17th September, 1987, respondents 2 to 5 filed Complaints (ULP) Nos. 741 to 744 of 1987 before the Industrial Court, Nasik, alleging, inter alia, therein that the petitioner had engaged in unfair labour practice under Item 9 of Schedule IV of the Act. The basis of the complaints was that the retrenchment effected by the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, inasmuch as (a) the employer had illegally deducted from the amount of retrenchment compensation payable the amount paid as lay-off compensation for the period of lay-off and (b) the employer had wrongly calculated the retrenchment compensation payable under the statute by not taking into account the annual increment of Rs. 75/-, which was payable to each of the four workmen concerned with effect from 1st August, 1987. The petitioner contested the complaints, and denied that the retrenchment had been effected on 8th September, 1987, as alleged. It pointed out that, though the Manager of the factory had attempted to serve the orders of retrenchment on 8th September, 1987, each of the four concerned workmen had refused to accept the same and, consequently, the said orders had been despatched on 9th September, 1987 accompanied by the statutory dues payable in accordance with section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and other provisions of law. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document