Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

14. He submits that the Labour Court has rightly considered the effect of non-compliance of Section 25G of the ID Act and Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957. He further submits that the Labour Court was convinced that juniors were retained in service and hence, the order of reinstatement.

15. I have considered the exhaustive submissions of the learned AGP and Shri Shelke and have gone through the record.

16. It is trite law that when an employee makes an allegation of junior employees being retained in service while terminating senior employees, a mere bald contention in the statement of claim, is not enough. In my view, when a litigant alleges violation of Section 25G and Rule 81, he cannot WP/5719/2005/Group suppress or hide the names of such employees, whom he brands as juniors to him, having been retained in employment. There must be a specific and precise pleading in the statement of claim. Only when it is pleaded, it could be proved.

20. In its conclusions on the issue of Section 25G and Rule 81, even the Labour Court has failed to rely upon any such piece of evidence, on the basis of which the conclusion that Section 25G was violated as juniors were retained in service, could be arrived at. In fact, the Labour Court has misdirected itself by only referring to several judgments cited and the ratio laid down therein. The Labour Court has merely considered the ratio laid down and has applied the said ratio to these cases without any evidence that Section 25G was violated. In my view, unless there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence before the Labour Court, it could not have drawn its conclusion of violation of Section 25G merely based upon the ratio laid down in the judgments cited.