S. R. SATHE, J.

( 1 ) MACKINNION Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. original respondent in Complaint (ULP) No. 1081 of 1992 and petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2733 of 1996 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the Honble single Judge of this Court, whereby, the order passed by the Member, Industrial court, Mumbai declaring that Respondent company has committed unfair labour practice under Item No. 9 of schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (hereinafter for the sake of convenience refer to as mrtu AND PULP Act), as there was non observance of Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957 and section 25g of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 was held, legal and valid and writ petition was rejected.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience hereafter the parties shall be referred to as the complainant union and respondent company. Brief facts giving rise to this L. P. A. are as under:-"the Respondent Company was engaged in the business of shipping, ship owning, managing ships and operating, clearing and forwarding, overseas recruitment and property owning and development. The complainant union is registered under Trade Union Act 1956. The Respondent company in its establishment at Ballard Pier, Bombay ha approximately 150 employees who were all workmen and members of the complainant union. According to the complainant union, whenever there used to be any issue pertaining to the services of workmen or about their voluntary retirement etc. the Respondent company used to have negotiations with the complainant union. Thus there was a custom, usage and practice amounting to a condition of service and an agreement viz. any major decision affecting their members or employees is always used to be discussed with the complainant union before its implementation. "

( 3 ) SOME time the last week of July 1992 there was a rumour in the company that large number of workers are going to be retrenched. The member of the complainant union therefore met the general manager of Respondent company on 30-7-1992 and he also confirmed the rumour and told them that retrenchment notices would be issued. Immediately thereafter i. e. on 31-7-1992 one of the member of the complainant union viz. A. P. Rodguries received a letter dated 27-7-1992 purportedly to be a notice of retrenchment effective on closing of business on 4-8-1992. It was stated in the said notice/letter that retrenchment compensation and one month salary in lieu of notice is being paid to him. The copy of the statement of reasons for retrenchment was also attached to the said notice. In the said statement of reasons it was mentioned that as a result of recession in the industry from 1988 the accumulated losses which were to the tune of Rs. 12-41 crores in 1983 reached to Rs. 70 crores. It was specifically mentioned in the statement of reasons that some of the departments of the company are being closed. The departments which were to be closed and which were to be continued, were also specified in the said statement of reasons.

( 4 ) ON perusal of the said notice as well as statement of reasons the complainant union found that Respondent company had not fulfilled the condition precedent under section 25f of Industrial Dispute Act while taking any action for retrenchment nor they had sent notice required to be forwarded under prescribed proforma to the State government. The company had also not published seniority list of workmen in different categories from which retrenchment was contemplated, as was required under Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules 1957. Besides this, there was also non compliance of the provisions of Section 9a of Industrial Disputes Act. The complainant union also noticed that though the Respondent company had mentioned that various divisions of the company are going to be closed down they had not followed the procedure required under Section 25ffa