New Delhi-110035. ... vs M/S. Taj Trade & Transport Co. Ltd on 1 March, 2011
Even there is no
date under the signatures of officer/official nor his full name and designation
has been disclosed but in the document Ex. MW1/X3 (which is the
corrigendum) the date has been mentioned as 02.11.2001 and in this
document, name of the claimant/workman Sh. V. K. Sharma has been
shown in the table of Deptt. Stores at S. No. 4, T. No. 307 with designation
Executive and date of joining as 31.01.81 and name of Sh. Ved Prakash has
been shown in the table of Deptt. Systems at S. No. 3, T. No. 880 with
designation Executive Systems and date of joining as 21.04.89. Therefore,
the genuineness of the corrigendum Ex. MW1/X3 appears to be in doubt.
Sh. Ved Prakash was admittedly junior to the workman more than 8 years.
No order has been proved on record to show the date when the Systems
Deptt. was created, when Sh. Ved Prakash was transferred and why Ex.
MX-2 was filed without any date of issue, without any date, name and
designation of the officers. Therefore, it creates doubt that Sh. Ved Prakash
was transferred to Systems Department on 17.09.2001 otherwise his name
should have been shown in document Ex. MX-2. The document Ex. MW-
1/X3 was issued on 02.11.2001. The document Ex. MW-1/X4 dated
17.09.2001 has not been proved by the management by examining Mr.
Bharat N. Gandhi, Authorized Signatory of the document nor the original
endorsement regarding official issue of this document has been proved. If
Sh. Ved Prakash had been so transferred then his name should have been
reflected on document Ex. MX-2 also. It appears that the corrigendum was
issued by the management in order to cover its lapse and show that transfer
of Sh. Ved Prakash as Executive Systems was genuine. Even otherwise, the
manner in which Sh. Ved Prakash has been shown to have been transferred
to Systems Department does not inspire confidence because admittedly the
LIR No. 953/06 (Old No. I.D. 338/03) 19 of 21 pages
claimant was senior to him about more than 8 years and after showing the
transfer of Sh. Ved Prakash from Stores Department on 17.09.2001, the
management conducted the exercise of assessing man power/staff strength
on 09.11.2001 as per Ex. WW-1/3 within two months to show surplus staff
in the Stores Department in order to justify the retrenchment of workman
otherwise there was no other reason to terminate him. Since the provisions
of chapter V of the Industrial Disputes Act were not attracted in view of the
fact that the management was registered under the Shops and Establishment
Act and was not an industry as defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of
Factories Act, the management was not required to take permission from the
Government. However, the retrenchment of the workman was violative of
principle "LAST IN FIRST GO" as Sh. Ved Prakash was still in the
employment of the management who was more than 8 years junior to the
workman. Therefore, issue is decided in favour of workman and against the
management.