1. Sale of business as going concern — Termination of staff during conciliation proceedings — Dispute over continuity of service and re-employment under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
1958 Supreme(SC) 83
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
21st May 1958.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI, S.K. DAS, K. SUBBA RAO AND VIVIAN BOSE, JJ.
Workmen of Dahingeapara Tea Estate, Appellant
Versus
Dahingeapara Tea Estate, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. B. Aggarwala Sr. Advocate, (Mr. K. P. Gupta Advocate with him), for Appellants; Mr. N. C. Chatterjee Sr. Advocate, (Mr. B. P. Maheswari Advocate with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
B.P.MAHESHVARI, C.B.AGARWAL, K.P.GUPTA, N.C.CHATTERJI
B.P.MAHESHVARI, C.B.AGARWAL, K.P.GUPTA, N.C.CHATTERJI
Industrial Tribunals adjudicate based on facts and circumstances to maintain industrial peace rather than deciding abstract legal questions. In the transfer of a going concern, if no trade reasons exist for termination and statutory protections are violated, the Tribunal can order continuity of service.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Sections 2(k), 10, and 33 - Industrial dispute - Transfer of business as a going concern - Jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal - Where workmen raise a dispute regarding the employment or non-employment of persons in whose status the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest, it constitutes an industrial dispute. (Para 14)
(B) Industrial Tribunals - Nature of functions - Functions are distinct from arbitration tribunals in commercial matters - Not required to decide abstract questions of law but to adjudicate based on facts and circumstances to prevent industrial unrest. (Paras 16, 17, 19)
(C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 33 - Termination of service during pendency of conciliation proceedings is ineffective in law. (Para 7, 19)
Facts of the case:
A tea estate was sold as a going concern. The agreement between the vendor and purchaser granted the purchaser absolute discretion to hire staff as new recruits without continuity of service. During pending conciliation proceedings, the vendor terminated the staff. The purchaser hired manual laborers with continuity of service but refused the same for clerical staff, requiring them to apply as new entrants. The Industrial Tribunal ordered reinstatement and continuity of service, but the Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside the award, treating the issue as an abstract legal question of contract.
Findings of Court:
The Industrial Tribunal's findings—that the estate was sold as a going concern, that there were no trade or efficiency reasons for excluding staff, and that discriminating between laborers and staff would create industrial unrest—were correct and not displaced. The termination of service during conciliation proceedings was ineffective under the law.
Issues: Whether the dispute was an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) and whether the Industrial Tribunal was justified in ordering continuity of service based on the facts of the transfer of a going concern rather than abstract legal principles.
Ratio Decidendi: An Industrial Tribunal's function is to adjudicate disputes based on the specific facts and circumstances of the case to maintain industrial peace, rather than deciding abstract questions of law. Where findings of fact regarding the nature of the business transfer and the lack of justification for termination are established, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to order reinstatement, particularly when statutory protections against termination during conciliation proceedings were violated.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether transfer of business as going concern mandates continuity of service — Whether agreement between vendor and purchaser binds employees — Existence of employer-employee relationship. (Para 12 )
3. Industrial Tribunal's findings on discrimination and unreasonable re-employment conditions were not displaced; termination during conciliation was ineffective under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 14 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
4. Industrial Tribunals adjudicate based on specific facts and industrial unrest rather than abstract legal questions; findings of fact by the Tribunal must be displaced by cogent reasons. (Para 17 , 19 , 22 )
5. Appeal allowed — Decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal set aside — Award of the Industrial Tribunal restored. (Para 23 )
6. Does a dispute regarding the non-employment of certain persons constitute an industrial dispute if they are not strictly workmen?
Yes, if the workmen as a class have a direct or substantial interest in the employment or non-employment of those persons, it is an industrial dispute under Section 2(k) of the Act. (Para 14 )
7. What is the effect of terminating employees' services while conciliation proceedings are pending under the Industrial Disputes Act?
Such termination is ineffective under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the workmen continue to be in employment in the eye of the law. (Para 7 , 19 )
8. Should an Industrial Tribunal decide disputes as abstract questions of law?
No, Industrial Tribunals do not decide abstract questions of law; they link facts and circumstances to the specific dispute to determine if the management's actions are justified. (Para 17 , 19 )
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J. : This appeal by special leave may be disposed of an a narrow ground. The material facts are shortly these. Dahingeapar Tea Company Ltd., a company incorporated under the English Companies Act and having its registered office in the city of London owned an extensive tea garden called Dahingeapar Tea Estate comprising an area of about 522 acres under plantation, situate in the sub-division of Jorhat in Assam. That company employed over 800 manual labourers and about 19 or 20 members of the clerical staff. By a memorandum of agreement made on 7-11-1953, between Dahingeapar Tea Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as the vendor) of the one part and Nikhli Jute Baling Co. Ltd., a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and having its registered office in the town of Calcutta (hereinafter called the purchaser) of the other part, it was agreed that the vendor would sell absolutely and the purchaser would purchase as and from 1-1-1954, all that Dahingeapar Tea Estate comprising the lands described in the Schedule thereto together with all the tea gardens, tea bushes, tea seedlings, tea plants, tea crops etc., and all appurtenances, machinery, electric installations, fittings and appliances for water supply, hospitals equipments, carts, tools utensils and also the export quota rights and internal rights relating to the sale or production of tea, and benefits of insurance and contracts for the sale of tea produced at the said tea estate as on and from January 1, 1954 or in connection with the manufacture of tea or the cultivation and maintenance of the tea estate which the purchaser may like to take over free from all encumbrances and liabilities whatsoever and at or for the price of Rs. 9,50,000, subject to the terms and conditions thereinafter mentioned. Clause 8 of the said agreement provided that subject to the payment of the purchase price in the manner therein mentioned and to the payment of the price of the estate, stores and stocks, possession of the Dahingeapar tea Estate would be given to the purchaser and that in the meantime through its manager and agents the vendor would work and maintain the planted area in as full and effectual manner as the same had theretofore been worked and cultivated and would not remove from Dahingeapar Tea Estate or cause wilful damage to any furniture, fixtures, fittings, machinery or hospital equipment on the Dahingeapar Tea Estate at the date of the agreement. Cl. 9 of the agreement, strongly relied on by the respondent, was as follows:
"The Purchaser shall have the option of taking such members of the staff of the Tea Estate as it shall in its absolute discretion consider useful and efficient for running the Tea Estate. Such members of the staff shall be given fresh appointment by the purchaser as on and from the First January one thousand nine hundred and fiftyfour. Any liability whatsoever for their past services including bonuses, gratuity, leave pay, dearness allowances, etc., shall be on the Vendor s account. The Vendor shall also, be liable or all the claims whatsoever of the members of the staff not retained by the purchaser including claims for discharges of service, salary, bonuses, gratuity, leave pay, dearness allowance etc."
Clause 20 of the said agreement stipulated for the delivery to the purchaser on completion of the conveyance of the title deeds and papers in the vendor s possession relating to the Tea Estate and by Cl. 21 it was agreed that all garden books of account and other books and documents relating to the garden necessary to the purchaser for the purpose of carrying on the said Tea Estate and the garden and not required by the vendor would be handed over by the vendor to the purchaser on completion.
2. It appears that the fact of this agreement for sale came to the knowledge of the Jorhat Jila Chah Mazdoor Sangha affiliated to the Indian National Trade Union Congress, Assam Branch. The Indian National Trade Union Congress apparently made s
