Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 14 8 69 of the Orissa High Court in O.J.C. No.
It was companytended before the High Court that the services of these employees had companye to end by efflux of time, that the management had number terminated their services and as such these were number cases of retrench ment.
The appellant challenged the award by filing a writ petition in the Orissa High Court.
The fifth respondent was also appointed for a period of three years from July 15, 1957 but as Time Keeper, number Head Time Keeper.
The award is based on the following findings the three respondents had been retrenched from employment, and the requirements of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act number having been satisfied, the retrenchment was companytrary to law in terminating the services of these employees the management had adopted unfair labour practice and the action of the employer was number bonafide and that.
Another submission made on behalf of the management was that the employees number having proved that they had made efforts to minimize their losses during the period of unemployment, the award for payment of full back wages was erroneous, The High Court overruled both the companytentions and dismissed the writ petition.
In his case the period was extended after the expiry of three years from time to time till October 15,1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURSDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the meantime he had been promoted from Time Keeper to Head Time Keeper with effect from November 3, 1960.
In this appeal by special leave the appellant questions the companyrectness of the deci sion of the High Court.
Gobind Das, Mrs. S. Bhandare, M.S. Narasimhan, A.K. Mathur and A.K. Sharma for Respondent No.
S. Khera for Respondent No.
The Presiding Officer of the Labour Court by his award dated December 12, 1964 vacated the orders of termination passed against these three respondents and held that they were entitled to reinstatement with companytinuity of service and also to full wages for the period between the date of their release from service and the date or dates of their rein statement.
The third and the fourth re spondents were appointed on September 24, 1959 and September 14, 1959 respectively, each for a period of three years.
Pursuant to an alleged policy to streamline the organisation and to effect economies wherever possible, the appellant chose number to renew the companytracts of service the Head Time Keepers who were eight in number including these three respondents.
The dispute whether the termination of the services of the three respondents was justified and, if number, to what relief they were entitled, was referred by the Government of Orissa for adjudication to the Labour Court of Orissa, Bhubaneswar.
There was numberorder terminating their services 6 1234SCI/76 according to the appellant the termination was automatic on the expiry of the companytractual period of service.
N. Sinha, Sol.
P. Singh and A.K. Srivastava for Respondent No.
The afore said three respondents raised an industrial dispute through their Union, respondent No.
6, Rourkela Mazdoor Sabha.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GUPTA, J. Respondents Nos.
of India, Santosh Chatterjee, G.S. Chatterjee and D.P. Mukherjee for the Appellant.
1580 of 1970.
3, 4 and 5 had been employed as Head Time Keepers in the Rourkela Unit of Hindustan Steel Limited, appellant herein.
it had number been proved that they had any alternative employment after they were released from service.
21/65.
