It appears that both the Labour Court as well as the learned Judges of the High Court Division wrongly held the termination in question having been passed during pendency of the I.R.O, case is mala fide, although they themselves held that the IRO case itself was not maintainable. The impugned letter of termination does not contain any stigma upon respondent No. 2 and on the face of it, it is a termination simpliciter and is well covered by the provision of Section- 19 of the Act. The termination was not a sequel to any trade union activity on the part of respondent No. 2 nor does he claim that no termination benefit was given to him.
Adamji Jute Mills Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Chairman & Anr. 7BLT (AD)-320
Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 Read with Industrial Relations (Regulation,) Ordinance, 1982
Section – 6(8)
Industrial dispute case — Praying for a direction upon the ‘Petitioner Mill” to pay compensation to the workers covered by Shops and Establishment Act, 1965 — The claim raised by the respondent Union was an Industrial Dispute as contemplated in Industrial Relation Ordinance of 1969 read with Industrial Relations (Regulation) Ordinance of 1982. The respondent Union having failed to reach to a settlement by negotiation approached the conciliator to conciliate in dispute raised and the conciliator also having failed to a conciliation, issued a certificate of failure and thereafter respondent Union under section 6(8) of the Ordinance of 1982 filed an application for adjudication of dispute. On the promulgation of the Ordinance of 1982 respondent Union had no other alternative but to file a case before the Labour Court for adjudication of the dispute raised. So, it cannot be said that the case before the Labour Court was no maintainable under the Ordinance of 1982. The Ordinance of 1982 is a procedural law and got retrospectively and the claim of the respondent Union in the form of a Industrial Dispute can be very well adjudicated by the labour court under the said Ordinance.
North Bengal Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs Labour Appellate Tribunal 5BLT (HCD)-202.