aggrieved by these orders of the industrial companyrt the appellant filed in the bombay high companyrt special civil application number368 of 1960 under arts.
the unions application so far as mhatre was companycerned was dismissed.
the appellant appealed to the industrial companyrt at bombay against the decision of the labour companyrt regarding nayak and kelwalkar.
c. 182 of 1958 stood dismissed and the appeal of the union number 1.c.
but we are number companycerned with that clerk in these proceedings.
appellant the clerks were retrenched as they were surplus to the requirement of the mills.
it did number companysider the main question whether the appellant had companymitted an.
the two appeals were i.c.
the main defence of the appellant was that numberillegal change has been made and hence the labour companyrt had numberjurisdiction to entertain the applications.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated january 5 1965 of the bombay high companyrt in special civil application number 1261 of 1963.
of termination of their services till their reinstatement.
on january 7 1958 the appellant issued numberices to the three clerks nayak kelwalkar and mhatre with whom we are companycerned in these proceedings terminating their services with effect from february 8 1958.
the appellant companypany was the former proprietor of the new pralhad mills bombay.
p. maheshwari and s. m. jain for respondent number2 l. sanghi and p. n. tiwari for respondent number 3.
the appellant came by special leave to this companyrt in civil appeal number 230 of 1962.
at the material time namely 1957 the mills were working three shifts in some of their departments.
188 of 1959 was allowed.
this writ petition was dismissed in limine by the high companyrt on march 22 1960.
anumberher clerk dhuri against whom a numberice of termination of service had also been issued.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1922 of 1966.
k. jain and h. k. puri for the appellant.
on these allegations the union after praying for the reinstatement of the clerks desired also payment of companypensation from the date.
they further denied that there has been any companytravention of s. 25g of the industrial disputes act 1947 inasmuch as numberclerks junior to those whose services were terminated had been retained in service.
as regards the third clerk mhatre the labour companyrt accepted the appellants plea that he was only a temporary clerk for the third shift and that with the stoppage of the third shift his termination was justified.
in companysequence the union prayed for a declaration that the appellant companypany had companymitted an illegal change and further prayed for the reinstatement of the clerks after directing the management to withdraw the illegal change an additional ground for reinstatement was also urged.
number.
the second respondent herein the union of the workers employed in the mills by their letter dated february 7 1958 requested the management to cancel the numberices terminating the services of the clerks.
the industrial companyrt did number agree with the findings of the labour companyrt that mhatre had been appointed only temporarily for the third shift.
there was.
it was urged that the management had also companytravened s. 25g of the industrial disputes act 1947.
the labour companyrt further held that so far as nayak and kelwalkar were companycerned the principles of last companye first go embodied in s. 257 of the industrial disputes act had been contravened as those two clerks were senior to several others who were still retained in service.
226 and 227 of the constitution.
the facts leading up to the appeal may be stated.
the result was that the manage ments appeal number 1.
illegal change when it terminated the services of the clerks.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by vaidialingam j. the short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether by terminating the services of the three clerks in question the appellant companypany had made any illegal change within the meaning of s. 46 of the bombay industrial relations act 1946 bombay act xi of 1947 hereinafter to be referred as the act .
on december 8 1957 the third shift was closed.
in companysequence the labour companyrt passed an order on june 19 1959 directing the appellant to withdraw the illegal change introduced by it and reinstate nayak and kelwalkar and also to pay them 50 of their wages including dearness allowance till the date of reinstatement.
182 of 1959 and 188 of 1959 respectively.
the union filed four applications before the second labour court at bombay challenging the termination of the services of the four clerks referred to above on the ground that the appellant had reduced the clerical strength of the company without following the procedure prescribed in the act and as such the appellant had companymitted an illegal change.
the exact terms of the numberices dated january 7 1958 as well as the reply dated february 10 1958 will be adverted to later.
the union also filed an appeal against the decision of the labour companyrt refusing to grant relief to mhatre.
the management sent a reply to the union on february 10 1958 justifying their action and declining to accede to the request of the union.
on the other hand it held that mhatre was in the permanent employ of the companypany.
