1969 Supreme(SC) 462
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. RAMASWAMI AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
M/s. Tatanagar Foundry Co., Ltd. Appellant
Versus
Their Workmen, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 697 of 1968, D/- 27-10-1969.
A.K.NAG, B.P.MAHESHVARI, B.SEN, R.K.MAHESHWARI, S.K.Khandiya
Headnote:
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 (1) (d) and 25F - Notice - Workmen - Retrenched workmen - Appeal by special leave Appellant, Tatanagar Foundry Co., Ltd., is incorporated in State and owns two manufacturing establishments one located in State and other - Appellant carries on its business but has now closed its business with effect - At time of closure appellant employed 1360 workmen in its establishment where it was producing cast iron pipes, specials and heavy grey iron castings including ingots, moulds etc - Appellant issued a notice in respect of its business athat due to shortage of orders and other economic reasons, about 120 workmen are being retrenched and Commissioner of Labour was duly notified of said retrenchment - At their meeting Board of Directors considered letter - Whether the closure could have been avoided – Held, In Court opinion finding of Tribunal on this point is defective in law - It is now well established that in case of a closure employer does not merely close down place of business but he closes business finally and irrevocably - Tribunal has found that appellant was not right in its contention that closure was due to unavoidable circumstances beyond its control - According to appellant main reasons for closure are: (1) financial condition of appellant - (2) non-availability of orders for supply of goods; (3) non-co-operation from workmen in standardisation of working force and for reduction of high percentage of rejection - Tribunal has gone into oral and documentary evidence adduced by parties and reached conclusion that closure of business was not due to unavoidable circumstances beyond control of appellant – Court see no reason for interfering with finding of Tribunal on this aspect of case - Allow appeal
Judgment
RAMASWAMI, J.: This appeal is brought by special leave from the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar dated September 15, 1967.
2. The appellant, Tatanagar Foundry Co., Ltd., is incorporated in the State of West Bengal and owns two manufacturing establishments one located at Belur in the State of West Bengal and the other in Jamshedpur in Bihar. The appellant carries on its business at Belur but has now closed its business at Jamshedpur with effect from November 20, 1956. At the time of the closure the appellant employed 1360 workmen in its Jamshedpur establishment where it was producing cast iron pipes, specials and heavy grey iron castings including ingots, moulds etc. On September 20, 1966 the appellant issued a notice in respect of its business at Jamshedpur that due to shortage of orders and other economic reasons, about 120 workmen are being retrenched and the Commissioner of Labour, Government of Bihar, Patna was duly notified of the said retrenchment. On September 22, 1966 the Labour Superintendent, Government of Bihar, Jamshedpur, held conciliation proceedings at which the appellant agreed to retain the services of 14 of the retrenched workmen and the union agreed to the retrenchment of the remaining workmen. On or about October 12, 1966 by a notice of the same date, the appellant desired to retrench about 400 workmen, but at the intervention of the Superintendent of Labour the notice was temporarily withdrawn with a view to discuss the matter with the union. Accordingly a meeting was fixed on October 21, 1966 between the appellant and the union at Jamshedpur but the said meeting could not take place. On October 29, 1966 the appellant by a notice laid off nearly 600 quality raw material. In a letter dated November 8, 1966 the Superintendent of Labour, Jamshedpur wrote that the General Secretary of the union had put up a proposal for running the Jamshedpur establishment of the appellant on a co-operative basis and requested Mr. G. D. Agarwalla, Director of the appellant to place the matter before the Board of Directors of the appellant. At their meeting on November 17, 1966 the Board of Directors considered the letter dated November 8, 1966 of the Labour Superintendent and resolved that the State Government should be desirous of running the Jamshedpur plant on a co-operative basis and Sri G. D. Agarwalla was authorised to conduct negotiations with the State Government of Bihar. But no further communication was received from the Government of Bihar indicating its willingness or intention to run the Jamshedpur branch of the appellant. At its meeting on November 17, 1966, the Board of Directors of the appellant considered the situation in the Jamshedpur plant and decided that it should be closed as early as possible and Mr. Agarwalla was authorised to take necessary steps to effect the closure. Pursuant to the decision of the Board of Directors Mr. Agarwalla issued a notice dated November 19, 1966. By the said notice the workmen of the appellant were informed of its decision to close the business at Jamshedpur for good with effect from November 21, 1966 for the reasons explained in the notice. All the workmen were also informed that their services were no longer required after November 21, 1966 and the workers should consider themselves as discharged with effect from the said date. On February 3, 1967 the Government of Bihar referred the following dispute to the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, for adjudication under S. 10 (1) (d) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947):
"Whether the closure of the Tatanagar Foundry Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur is justified? If not, to what relief and compensation the workmen are entitled?"
By its award dated September 15, 1967 the Industrial Tribunal held that it was satisfied that the closure of the Jamshedpur business of the appellant was not a closure but a lockout in the disguise of a closure and directed the reinstatement of the workmen with full wages for the period they have b