JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:---The petitioners are Trade-Wings Limited, a Company carrying on the business of Travel Agents as also Clearing and Forwarding Agents.

2. Respondent No.1 to 9 were employed with the petitioners as Junior Assistants. Respondents No.10 and 11 are the Presiding Officer and Member of the Labour Court and Industrial Court respectively whose decisions are impugned in the present petition.

3. Sometime in November, 1984 the management of the petitioners changed hands. It is the case of the petitioners that there were huge accumulated losses in respect of their Bombay office. There was excess staff in the Accounts and Administrative Department. The petitioners, therefore, on 7th January, 1985 retrenched the services of respondent No.9 and one other, who is not before the Court. Similarly on 19th February, 1985 the petitioners retrenched the services of respondents No.1 to 8. Taking exception to the said order of retrenchment each of the respondents No.1 to 9 filed separate complaints under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the MRTU PULP Act). They alleged offences are under section 28 read with Schedule IV, item 1 of the Act. According to the respondents No.1 to 9, the petitioners indulged in unfair labour practice by wrongfully retrenching their services.

4. The complaints were resisted by the petitioners on the ground inter alia that the retrenchment was bona fide and had been brought about after following the requisite formalities. Common evidence was led in respect of 9 complaints. Respondents No.1 to 9 examined three of the complainants viz. Manoj Chandrakant Mankami, Sanjeev Ramchandra Rele, and Abu Razak Sheikh. In rebuttal the petitioners examined their General Manager, Kirti Trimbalal Shah and their Administrative Manager, Madhav Narayan Nair.

5. By a judgment and order dated 20th September, 1985 respondent No.10, the Presiding Officer of the 8th Labour Court, Bombay, held that the petitioners had failed to display the seniority list of the employees on 24th December, 1984 and, therefore, the retrenchment dated 7th January 1985 of respondent No. 9 and one other was illegal. In regard to the seniority list dated 11th February, 1985 he held that even if the same were to be held as having been published, the same was in breach of the provisions of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. Therefore, the retrenchment of respondents No.1 to 8 was also illegal. According to the trial Court, the reason of retrenchment given in the termination/retrenchment letters is patently false. The retrenchment compensation tendered was short of the requisite amount inasmuch as it was calculated on the basis of monthly wages for 30 days instead of 26 days and hence short payment was no payment. The impugned retrenchment is illegal on this ground also. The trial Court further held that the retrenchment was made in undue haste and the same was not in good faith. Pursuant to the aforesaid findings, the trial Court held that the petitioners have engaged in unfair labour practice as contemplated in item 1(b), (d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the Act. The petitioners were directed to cease and desist from continuing the unfair labour practice complained of. They were directed to allow the respondents No. 1 to 9 to resume work and carry on their normal duties.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the petitioners approached the respondent No. 11, the Industrial Court, by filing separate revision applications. By a common judgment and order dated 4th April, 1986 the learned respondent No. 11 set aside the finding of the learned respondent No. 10 in regard to the unfair labour practice under item No. 1 (d) of Schedule IV i.e., to discharge or dismiss employees for patently false reasons. He, however, confirmed the findings of the learned respondent No. 10 in respect of the unfair labour practice under item

Click Here to Read the rest of this document