The workmen were entitled to continuity of employment at the new location and payment of full wages with continuity of service till the Industry restarted at the relocated place. The workmen had the right to opt not to rejoin at the relocated place, and if they exercised such an option, they would be deemed to have been retrenched w.e.f. 30-11-1996.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES - RELOCATION OF INDUSTRY - WORKMEN'S RIGHT TO CONTINUITY OF EMPLOYMENT - OPTION TO SHIFT - INTERPRETATION OF COURT ORDER - WORKMEN'S RIGHT TO OPT NOT TO REJOIN - PROCEDURE FOR REJOINING AT RELOCATED PLACE - PAYMENT OF BACK WAGES AND SHIFTING BONUS.
Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose due to the closure of 168 industries, including the Industry in question, by an order of the Supreme Court. The Court directed the grant of incentives and benefits to industries desiring to relocate and also for payment of various amounts to the workmen. The workmen claimed continuity of employment, payment of full back wages, and other benefits as per the Court's order.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the workmen were entitled to continuity of employment at the new location and payment of full wages with continuity of service till the Industry restarted at the relocated place. The Court clarified that the workmen were not obligated to give any option to rejoin but could have opted not to rejoin. The letter dated 6-1-1997, in which the workmen expressed their willingness to rejoin subject to the outcome of certain applications filed in the Court, could not be treated as a conditional option not to rejoin.
Issues: 1. Whether the management was right in its submissions that the workmen, though given opportunity in various letters to give their option for reporting at Baddi, failed to exercise option and must be deemed to have been retrenched on 30-11-1996 in terms of the orders dated 8-7-1996 and 30-12-1996 of this Court? 2. Whether the workmen were right in contending that the management had no right to seek options from the workmen even before the Industry was relocated and started functioning at Baddi?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the relevant clauses of the order dated 8-7-1996 and held that the workmen were to be treated as in service till the time the Industry restarted at the relocated place and till such time, their services were to be treated as continuous. The Court held that the Industry could not compel the workmen to exercise any option before the date of such restart informing the Industry that they were prepared to rejoin at the place where the Industry was proposed to be started. The Court further held that the workmen had the right to opt not to rejoin at the relocated place, and if they exercised such an option, they would be deemed to have been retrenched w.e.f. 30-11-1996.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Industry to allow all the workmen, except those who exercised or would exercise an option not to rejoin, to rejoin at Baddi. The workmen were directed to report at Baddi on specified dates and sign a register in the presence of the Deputy Labour Commissioners. The Industry was directed to pay back wages, shifting bonus, and other benefits to the workmen who rejoined. The workmen who did not rejoin or opted not to rejoin were directed to be paid one year's wages and Section 25-F(b) compensation.

JUDGMENT

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. - The dispute in this batch of IAs is between the workmen and the management of M/s. Birla Textiles (Proprietor Textiles Ltd., Calcutta). Common questions arise in all these IAs.

2. IA No. 202 of 1992 (in IA No. 22 in WP No. 4677 of 1985) has been filed on behalf of 2800 workers of M/s. Birla Textiles (Proprietor Textiles Ltd., Calcutta) ("the Industry") who claim to have worked for various periods ranging from 5 to 30 years and whose services are in jeopardy upon the closure of the Industry at Delhi, consequent to orders of this Court. The reliefs sought for in this IA are (i) payment of full back wages w.e.f. 1-12-1996 along with 18% interest, (ii) to treat the workmen as in continuous employment for 1-12-1996, (iii) to direct the Industry to deem that the workmen have exercised option to shift in accordance with the order of this Honble Court, (iv) to direct the Industry to give 1 years wages as shifting bonus, (v) to direct the Industry to ask the workmen to report at the selection sites after the factory is fully set up and commenced production, with basic amenities for the workers and their families.

3. The following are the facts : by an order dated 8-7-1996 in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India ((1996) 4 SCC 750) this Court directed closure of 168 industries including the Industry in question. Various directions were given including the grant of incentives and benefits to industries desiring to relocate and also for payment of various amounts to the workmen. We are mainly concerned with directions 9(a) to (f) issued in the above case which read as follows : (SCC pp. 769-70, para 28)

"(9) The workmen employed in the above-mentioned 168 industries shall be entitled to the rights and benefits as indicated hereunder :

(a) The workmen shall have continuity of employment at the new town and place where the Industry is shifted. The terms and conditions of their employment shall not be altered to their detriment;

(b) The period between the closure of the Industry in Delhi and its restart at the place of relocation shall be treated as active employment and the workmen shall be paid their full wages with continuity of service;

(c) All those workmen who agree to shift with the Industry shall be given one years wages as shifting bonus to help them settle at the new location;

(d) The workmen employed in the industries which fail to relocate and the workmen who are not willing to shift along with the relocated industries, shall be deemed to have been retrenched with effect from 30-11-1996 provided they have been in continuous service (as defined in Section 25-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947) for not less than one year in the industries concerned before the said date. They shall be paid compensation in terms of Section 25-F(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. These workmen shall also be paid, in addition, one years wages as additional compensation;

(e) The shifting bonus and the compensation payable to the workmen in terms of this judgment shall be paid by the management before 31-12-1996.

(f) The gratuity amount payable to any workmen shall be paid in addition."

4. Initially, the Industry was not prepared to relocate elsewhere and therefore, it informed this Court that it would retrench the employees and pay whatever was payable to the workmen under the above order. But pursuant to the suggestions of this Court, the Industry reconsidered the matter and this Court in its order dated 4-12-1996 in M. C. Mehta v. Union of India ((1997) 11 SCC 327) observed that the learned counsel for the industries had accepted the Courts suggestion to have a "fresh look" into the matter. In the same order dated 4-12-1996 ((1997) 11 SCC 327) this Court modified direction 9(a) relating to payment of back wages as "six years wages" instead of "one years wages" in case the Industry decided to close down. That would mean that in the event of non-relocation, the workmen would h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document