was clearly time barred. He would further submit that the services of the workman were required to be terminated on account of want of sufficient work for Draughtsman due to closure of Drives and ACP sections as well as curtailing of Development Section. Thus, his services were rendered surplus warranting his termination. That the workman was paid one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice, retrenchment compensation, leave salary, earned salary, etc. and that his termination was effected by following due process of law. He would submit that the finding of functional integrality recorded by the Labour Court is perverse as only one Senior Draughtsman was employed at the relevant time. That therefore no question of maintaining any seniority list. Mr. Kadam would further submit that mere filing of returns under same account number cannot demonstrate functional integrality between different units of employer. He would further submit that the factory of the employer had only 40 workers and that therefore provisions of chapter VB of the Industrial Dispute Act had no application. That this aspect is undisputed as the workman did not conduct any cross-examination on this aspect. He would submit that having been employed on 01 October 1995, the workman did not have any right to continue especially after reduction of manufacturing activities at the factory of the employer. He would submit that termination has been effected after payment of all dues to the workman and therefore the Labour Court has erred in awarding compensation to him. He would pray for setting aside the Award.
