second contention was that Chapter V-B of the Industrial Disputes Act
was applicable to the Respondent company. Both contentions were
negatived by the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court observed that
the companies (in which the complainant claimed to have worked) were
separate, though they belonged to one and the same group, namely,
Damani group. The court observed that he was working with the
Respondent company of the group; the engagement was by such
company; and he was not compelled by anyone to work for Respondent
No.1 or, for that matter, other group companies. The Industrial Court
observed that at the time of termination, the complainant was employed
by Respondent No.1, and so far as Respondent No.1 was concerned, it
had maintained a seniority list and his retrenchment was in accordance
with such seniority list. The Industrial Court also went through the
circumstances in which the complainant came to be retrenched. The
court held that the retrenchment was made after following due
procedure prescribed by the Industrial Disputes Act and there was no
occasion for any complaint of unfair labour practice. On the question of
applicability of Chapter V-B, the court held that the responsibility to
show that the case was covered by Chapter V-B was on the complainant,
who had failed to discharge the burden; no material was placed before
the trial court in that behalf, when the complaint was heard on merits.
(The ground of applicability of Chapter V-B was raised in revision on the
basis of documents or material obtained in pursuance of Right to
Information Act, after the complaint was dismissed by the first court.)
The court also noted that the list produced by the complainant did not
indicate that in the preceding twelve months, the undertaking had
engaged 100 or more employees.
