JUDGMENT - Smt. NISHITA MHATRE, J.:---The petitioner has challenged the Award of the Labour Court whereby the Labour Court has awarded reinstatement with 60% back-wages to the respondent-workman with effect from 7-4-1987. The Labour Court has also directed that an amount of Rs. 350/- per month should be deducted from the back-wages payable to the workman as he had received this amount during the period he was not in service.

2. The petitioner is a registered Charitable organisation sponsored by German Leprosy Relief Association. It had engaged respondent No. 1 as a driver from 9-5-1984. It is the petitioner's case that due to financial difficulties and fall in the quantum of work, it decided to retrench one of the drivers from amongst the three that it had employed. The respondent-workman being the junior-most driver, was retrenched w.e.f. 1-4-1987. The letter of termination shows that an amount of Rs. 4,320,40 was offered by way of legal dues on account of retrenchment.

3. Being aggrieved by the termination of service, the respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication before the Labour Court. In the statement of claim, the respondent-workman pleaded that the petitioner had wrongfully and illegally terminated his services. It is also pleaded that after terminating his services, three or four new drivers were recruited by the petitioner and that his services have been terminated due to his refusal to resign from the trade union of which he was a member. Further, it was contended that section 25-H of the Industrial Disputes Act had been violated.

4. In the written statement, the petitioner pleaded that the services of the respondent-workman were terminated by way of retrenchment and that he was paid retrenchment compensation after three years for the service put in by him together with one month's notice salary and leave wages and other dues payable to him. The petitioner contended that the retrenchment was effected as a measure of economy and that it was a bona fide decision taken by it. The allegation that three or four new drivers were recruited has been refuted and it is stated that as and when there were exigencies of work, drivers were employed on a casual basis.

5. The evidence of the respondent-workman was recorded wherein he has stated that he continued to physically work in the establishment upto 7-4-1987 and that he was not paid or offered his legal dues. He has denied the suggestion put to him in the cross-examination that the petitioner had sent to him a letter dated 1-4-1987 by R.P.A.D. and that he had not claimed the same.

6. The petitioner examined its Director as well as a Special Assistant working with the project. The Director has deposed that the finances of the petitioner did not permit it to employ three drivers at a time and, therefore, the respondent-workman was retrenched. The witness also deposed that the amount of Rs. 4,320.40 was sent to the respondent-workman by insured post and that the envelope containing the amount was returned 'unclaimed'. The witness also stated that the petitioner had been employing drivers on a casual basis. The second witness for the petitioner had deposed that he had inserted the amount of Rs. 4,320.40 in the insured envelope together with the letter of retrenchment issued to the respondent-workman and he had sent the envelope to the workman. On 16-5-1987, he had collected the envelope from the post office as the petitioner had received an intimation from the post office that the insured envelope was returned "unclaimed". He has also stated that he had recorded the numbers of the currency notes which were inserted into the envelope and that he had checked the cash in the envelope that was returned and then made an entry in the cash book accordingly. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he did not post the letter to the respondent-workman. However, he has stated that he had not recorded the numbers of the currency notes while removing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document