The appellant challenged the decision of the Single Judge before the Division Bench is special Appeal No.
The learned Single Judge, by his judgment and order dated February 16, 1966, remanded the dispute, for fresh companysideration by the Labour Court.
The workman filed Writ petition No.
The Division Bench agreed with the decision of the learned Single Judge and companyfirmed the order, quashing the award and remanding the proceedings to the Labour Court for fresh companysideration.
The appellant effected retrenchment and terminated the services of S. Tajdar Hussain, the original first respondent in this appeal, and number deceased.
The Labour Court, on a companysideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, ultimately upheld the order of the management, retrenching the workman companycerned.
Hence the Labour Court held that the amount, having been made available to the workman by the Company, it was number the fault of the Company if the workman did number receive the same.
75 of 1966.
455 of 1963 before the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, challenging the award of the Labour Court.
Though, before the Labour Court, at a very early stage, the work man raised a companytroversy regarding the right of the appellant to be represented by Mr. O.P. Vatsa, the proceedings show that later on, the said workman withdrew his objections.
A dispute was raised regarding the validity of the order of retrenchment and, accordingly, the same was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the companycerned labour Court.
It is also clear from the order of the Labour Court that this point was never raised during the later stage of the proceedings.
A. Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal, by special leave, the judgment and order of the division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, dated the 12th May, 1967 in special Appeal No.
75 of 1966 are under attack.
Ultimately, the Labour Court upheld the order of retrenchment as valid.
