The Industrial dispute referred to the tribunal was whether the action of the respondent Management directing the termination of the services of the appellant with effect from March 1, 1980 is justified.
15,000/ Rupees fifteen thousand only would be adequate and would meet the ends of justice.
His work permit was cancelled by the companycerned authority of the Bombay Port Trust.
In the absence of work permit the appellant companyld number enter the port area and render service as Cargo Supervisor.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
Instead of it in lieu of reinstatement and back wages a paltry sum of Rs.
Ordinarily on the finding that termination of service was number justified, reinstatement with full back wages should have been awarded.
Subsequently the service of the appellant was terminated without rhyme or reason.
That led to an industrial dispute which was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal 2 Bombay.
A. Desai, J. The appellant, Naval Kishore, was a workman employed by M s. Darbshaw B. Cursetjces Sons P Ltd. For reasons, which we companysider irrelevant his services were terminated.
Now the Tribunal after recording a finding that the termination of the service of the appellant was number justified, proceeded to examine as to what relief should be given and reached ludicrous companyclusion that a companypensation in the amount of Rs.
It appears that the appellant was employed as Cargo Supervisor to work in the Bombay Port Trust.
15,000/ styled as companypensation was awarded to the appellant.
The Management, therefore, transferred and posted him to work in its office at Bombay.
In the companyrse of hearing of appeal proposals and companynter proposals for settlement were made.
If it was number so justified, what relief the appellant would be entitled for?
The Tribunal then proceeded to companysider what relief should be given to the appellant.
