JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. —CIVIL APPEALS NOS.4079-80 OF 1985:

These two appeals are preferred against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing Writ Appeal No.1529 of 1984 filed by the respondent- Union and dismissing Writ Appeal No 1528 of 1984 preferred by the appellant Management. The matter arises under the Industrial Disputes Act.

2. The appellant ( Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited is a company wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India. It is engaged in the construction of industrial and engineering plants both within the country and abroad. Among other works, it had undertaken the construction of a steel plant at Bokaro in the State of Bihar, construction of a super-alloy project and a nuclear fuel complex at Hyderabad. It has also undertaken some works at Visakhapatnam. For its Hyderabad projects, it engaged about 230 workmen. These works were completed by January, 1980 except for some very minor works.

3. Apprehending that the workers may be retrenched on the completion of the works at Hyderabad, the respondent Union had a meeting with the Management of the appellant Corporation on September 5, 1979. The minutes of the meeting read as follows:

"The Union mentioned that there are 230 workers in Hyderabad Unit of HSCL. Even though the work is coming to an end at Hyderabad, they stated that since the company is getting work in Vizag, it would be possible for the Management to transfer all the 230 workers from Hyderabad to Vizag, including those belonging to non-transferable categories. The Union felt that there should not be any difficulty for the Management to agree to this because both Hyderabad and Vizag are in the same State and the number of workers involved is not much.

It was pointed out from the Managements side that to the extent of requirement that will arise immediately at Vizag in the transferable categories, transfer from Hyderabad will be done. However, in case of non-transferable categories, they may have to be retrenched at Hyderabad and re-employed at Vizag if requirements arise there later.

The management offered that from the non-transferable categories, if anyone is suitable for skilled job, selection could be made out of them for the immediate requirement of skilled categories at Vizag in place of recruiting from outside."

4. Accordingly, 130 workers were transferred to Visakhapatnam but the remaining 100 could not be absorbed at any other place. It is not clear from the record ( nor does it appear to have been gone into at any stage ( whether these 100 workers belong to transferable categories or to non-transferable categories.

5. On March 28, 1981, the appellant issued a notice of retrenchment stating that inasmuch as the construction works undertaken at Hyderabad have come to an end, the workmen as per the annexure to the notice have become surplus and are being retrenched. On the same day, individual notices for retrenchment were issued in accordance with S. 25-F of the Act making available the retrenchment compensation and one months pay in lieu of notice.

6. Four writ petition were filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the said retrenchment. They were dismissed in view of the alternative remedy of reference provided by the statute. By G.O.M.S.No.276 dated April 27, 1982, the Government of Andhra Pradesh referred the following two questions for the adjudication of the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad:

"(1) Whether the demand of Hindustan Steel Works Construction Limited Employees Union, Hyderabad, for the absorption of the hundred workmen, retrenched on 28-3-1981, at Visakhapatnam and other works in the country is justified? If so, to what relief, the workmen are entitled?

(2) Whether the action of the management in transferring and continuing junior workmen in other works, while retrenching senior workers recruited for the construction works at Hyderabad, is justified? If not, to what relief, the workmen are entitled?

7. Both the p