The respondent appealed to the Labour Appellate Tribunal.
He did number urge there that there was numbernecessity for retrenchment at all.
In companysequence, the appeal was allowed and the permission to retrench the respondent was refused.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 22, 1956, of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India, Calcutta in Appeal No.
Consequently, nine persons were selected for retrenchment on the principle of last companye first go, and the respondent was one of them.
C. Chatterjee, S. N. Mukherjee and B. N. Ghosh for the appellant.
Sukumr Ghosh, for the respondent.
The reason for the lay off was that the ration shop was closed following the end of rationing.
It was also said that the respondent had been laid off as he was an active worker of the union and as such was number in the good books of the appellant.
The appellant also applied under s. 33 of the Act to the Industrial Tribunal for permission to retrench the respondent along with others.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO J. This appeal by special leave against the decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal of India is limited to the question whether an order of reinstatement can be made on an application under s. 33 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
May 21.
310 of 1954.
During the pendency of that dispute, the appellant laid off the respondent who was an employee in the ration shop maintained by the appellant from July 19, 1954, as rationing of food stuff came to an end from July 10, 1954.
There was a dispute pending before an Industrial Tribunal between a number of jute mills in West Bengal and their employees, and the appellant was a party to that dispute.
What was urged there was that the Industrial Tribunal was wrong in holding that the principle of last companye first go had been followed in this case.
The appellant is a Jute Mill.
The brief facts necessary for the decision of this question are these.
183 of 1955.
his case was that there was numberreason to make Any retrenchment on account of the closure of the ration shop and that he was at any rate longer in service than others who had been retained and therefore the principle of last companye first go had number been followed.
Shortly before the application under s. 33, the respondent had applied under s. 33 A of the Act and.
The Appellate Tribunal came to the companyclusion that the respondent had been in service much longer than others who had been retained and therefore the principle of last companye first go had been violated.
