SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
31st March, 1959.
J. IMAM, A.K. SARKAR AND K. SUBBA RAO JJ.
Chaganlal Textile Mills Private Ltd., Appellant
Versus
Chalisgoan Girni Kamgar Union, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 97 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. J. Kolah, Advocate, (M/s. S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and Rameshwar Nath, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Appellant; M/s. Naushir Barucha, K. R. Chaudhury and K. R. Sharma, Advocates, for Respondent. 723
BOMBAY INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT - SECTION 35(1), 35(5), 40(1), 42, SCHEDULE I ITEM 3, 10, SCHEDULE II ITEM 1 - STANDING ORDER 8(1)(C), 23(1) - NOTICE OF CHANGE - REDUCTION OF POSTS - RETRENCHMENT OF EMPLOYEES - DISTINCTION - LEGALITY OF RETRENCHMENT NOTICE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a textile mill, closed its second shift and retrenched fourteen employees who were not workers in the second shift but whose services were necessary to make arrangements for the second shift to start working. The employees' union challenged the retrenchment as illegal, contending that the notice of retrenchment was given prior to the notice of change required under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1947.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the notice of change contemplated by Section 42 of the Act relates only to posts and not to the personnel occupying the posts. A notice of change in respect of Item No. 1 of Schedule II does not automatically effect any retrenchment; an independent notice to retrench has also to be given under standing order No. 23(1). The notice of retrenchment dated November 1, 1957 was legal and no exception can be taken to it.
Issues: Whether the notice of retrenchment was illegal as it was given prior to the notice of change.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Item No. 1 of Schedule II of the Act, which deals with reduction of a permanent or semi-permanent character in the number of persons employed, refers only to posts and not to the personnel occupying the posts. A notice of change in respect of Item No. 1 of Schedule II does not automatically effect any retrenchment; an independent notice to retrench has also to be given under standing order No. 23(1). The notice of retrenchment dated November 1, 1957 was legal and no exception can be taken to it.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, holding that the retrenchment was legal and the employees were not entitled to reinstatement.
Judgment
A. K. SARKAR J.: The appellant is a company running a textile mill. It has appealed against an order directing it to reinstate fourteen of its employees whose services it had terminated. The appeal is contested by the respondent Union representing the employees, whose contention is that the services of the employees had been terminated in disregard of the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, Bombay Act XI of 1947, a reference to the relevant provisions of which will be made later.
2. The appellant mill worked in two shifts. On July 9, 1957, the appellant gave notice that the working of the second shift would be discontinued on the expiration of a month from that date. On August 9, 1957, the working of the second shift was closed in terms of the notice. It is not disputed that the second shift was properly and bona fide closed.
3. The fourteen employees with whom this case is concerned were not workers in the second shift but their services were necessary in order to make all arrangements ready for the second shift to start working. With the closure of the second shift, there was no longer any need to make things ready for its running. On November 1,1957, the appellant served notices on the fourteen employees terminating their services and paid them retrenchment compensation and salary as required by law. It has not been contended that the retrenchment was not necessary as a result of the closure of the second shift. The services of these fourteen employees were accordingly terminated. Thereafter on November 9, 1957, the appellant gave a notice, called the notice of change, that it wished to abolish twenty seven posts including the posts held by the fourteen employees. On December 8, 1957, the respondent on behalf of the employees applied to the Labour Court of Bombay under the provisions of the Act mentioned above for an order declaring that the notice of retrenchment was illegal and reinstating the employees concerned. It contended that the retrenchment was illegal as the notice of it had been given prior to the notice of change. The Labour Court accepted the contention of the respondent and directed the appellant to withdraw the notice of retrenchment and reinstate the employees in their posts. An appeal by the appellant from this order to the Industrial Court at Bombay under the provisions of the Act failed. The present appeal is from the order of the Industrial Court.
4. Section 35(1) of the Act provides a procedure for the framing of standing orders in regard to the matters mentioned in Schedule I of the Act. Sub-section (5) of the section provides that till the standing orders framed under the section had come into operation, the model standing orders notified by the Government would apply. In the present case no standing orders relating to the appellant s industry had been framed or had come into operation at the material time and, therefore, the model standing orders notified by the Government were operative. Section 40(1) provides that the standing orders for the time being operative shall be determinative of the relations between an employer and his employers in regard to all industrial matters specified in Schedule I. It is necessary now to refer to two of the items in schedule I. Item No. 3 is concerned with "shift working including notice to be given to employee, of starting, alteration, or discontinuance of two or more shifts in a department or departments". And item No. 10 concerns "termination of employment including notice to be given by employer and employees". The standing orders in regard to items Nos. 3 and 10 were respectively as follows:
Standing Order No. 8(1)(c).-Whenever an additional shift is started or shifts are altered or discontinued, a seven days notice shall be given provided that it shall be necessary to give one month s notice if as a result of the discontinuance of the shift any permanent employee is likely to be discharged.
Standing Order No. 23(1).-The employment of a p
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.