Judgment

BOSE, J. : We are concerned here with there appeals. They arise out of a dispute between the J. K. Iron and Steel Company Ltd., and the Iron and Steel Mazdoor Union. We will call them the Company and the Mazdoor Union respectively. The facts are as follows.

2. The Company had its factory and other works at Kanpur in Uttar Pradesh. On 10-4-1948 the Ministry of Commerce in the Government of India ordered the Company to shift its Jute Baling Hoops factory from Kanpur to Calcutta.

3. As no land was available in Calcutta no effect could be given to this order till the year 1950-51. On 19-3-1951 the Iron & Steel Controller ordered the Company to stop the rolling of Jute baling hoops at once. Accordingly, the production of these hoops was stopped from that date.

4. At the same time there was scarcity of scrap iron and the Company s case is that that forced it to reduce the working of its furnace from three shifts a day to one.

5. The Company states that because of these two causes it was obliged to retrench its staff. Therefore, it issued the following notice dated 15-5-1951 to 128 of its workers :

"Consequent to transfer of the Rolling Mill to Calcutta and want to scrap of Furnace Department in full, the services of the persons as per list attached are dispensed with from today.

Their wages and other dues in full settlement will be paid after 2 p. m."

6. Twenty five of the 128 accepted their wages and other dues in full settlement but the remaining 103 refused. Their cause was accordingly espoused by the Mazdoor Union, which made an application to the Regional Conciliation Officer at Kanpur on 16-5-1951 complaining that the retrenchment was illegal and asking that the workmen be reinstated with full payment of their wages for the period they were out of work.

7. This was forwarded to the Government of Uttar Pradesh and on 28-6-1951 the Governor of that State referred the following issue to the Regional Conciliation Officer at Kanpur under Ss. 3, 4 and 8, U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 for adjudication :

"Whether the retrenchment of the workmen given in the Annexure by Messers, J. K. Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., Kanpur, is unjustified ? If so, to what relief are the workmen entitled ?"

8. The parties filed their written statements on 14-7-1951 and the Company filed a rejoinder on 20-7-1951. The Adjudicator thereupon took evidence, oral and documentary, and gave his award on 1-11-1951. But before that was done the case of one of the workmen (Kapil Deo Singh) was withdrawn and that left 102 for him to deal with.

9. The Adjudicator reached the following conclusions. The Mazdoor Union had contended that the retrenchment was not in good faith. The Adjudicator held that it was and that there was neither harassment nor victimisation.

So also on the question about the shortage of scrap he held that there was a shortage but that it was only temporary and that it was not likely to last for more than 8 or 9 months. He then referred to the Standing Orders and said that the Company was not entitled to resort to retrenchment except as a last resort and that in the circumstances of the present case these workmen should (1) have been offered the option of employment in the new set up at Calcutta; and (2) those that did not want it should have been laid off in rotation instead of being retrenched. He accordingly ordered that that should be done and drew up a graduated scale of compensation.

10. We observe in passing that the expression used throughout has been "played off". The reason for that is that that is the phrase used in the Standing Orders & in the copy of the Act & Model Standing Orders reproduced by the U. P. Dept. of Labour in its Annual Review of Activities. But it seems to us that that was due to a printer s error at some stage which has been repeated in various places. The correct expression is "lay off". That is the expression used and defined in the Act.

The Standing Orders should have used the same phrase. Apart from the definition in th