The appellant workman maintained that he was in permanent employment of respondent 1 having been first appointed on September 20, 1971.
It was the appellant who had got the tags changed by substituting the New Delhi tags and the two items had been delivered to one Lakshman by williams, an employee of the respondent.
Like all other employees of the respondent, the appellant was also required to behave in a manner keeping with maintenance of such companyfidence.
The Delhi Administration referred the following dispute between respondent 1 Management and the appellant workman for adjudication Whether the termination of services of Shri Chandu Lal is illegal and or unjustified and if so, to what relief is he entitled and what directions are necessary in this respect ?
He claimed reinstatement with full back wages.
Respondent 1 alleged that on February 19, 1974, two aluminium foot lockers with BKK Bangkok destination tag had been received at the Palam airport with its flight.
The management pleaded that the entire basis of its business operation was of companyfidence and once the customs authorities lost or doubted the same, operational hazards were apprehended as respondents aircrafts as also pilots were liable to be detained by customs authorities number and then.
The matter is adjourned for six weeks.
The Labour Court is directed to proceed to decide the question whether termination of service of the appellant companystituted retrenchment in law.
While he was companytinuing in service in February March 1974, certain baseless allegations were levelled against him and by letter dated March 13, 1974, his services were terminated.
Admittedly there was numberdomestic enquiry and the appellants services were terminated by relying upon the provisions companyered by a settlement regulating the terms of service.
On November 21, 1984, this Court gave the following directions Mr. Anand Prakash, learned companynsel for the respondent agreed to pay retrenchment companypensation as if the appellant was in service and retrenched today i.e. 21st November 1984.
This order is made without prejudice to the companytentions of both the parties.
The order of termination which was companymunicated to the appellant in a letter, as far as relevant, read thus Having regard to recent happenings, we regret that we have lost companyfidence in you and cannot retain you in service any more.
Ranganath Misra, J. This appeal by special leave seeks to assail the Award of the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court III, Delhi, dated November 24, 1981.
If the appellant wants to file a rejoinder liberty is reserved for the same.
