The Tribunal's findings on employment reinstatement were upheld as the petitioner failed to adhere to statutory retrenchment procedures in the Industrial Disputes Act.

ORDER :

B. V. L. N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J.

The Writ Petition is filed Under Article 226 of Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari to quash the award dated 12.07.2019 under I.D.No.65/2015 on the file of Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam.

02. The contention of the petitioner’s company is that the respondents No.1 and 2 worked in their establishment upto 30.04.2014. The petitioner was in the activity of undertaking ship repairs. The respondents No.1 and 2 were engaged for the said purpose on daily basis. The petitioner is having workshop at Kakinada. There had been financial crisis from 2012 onwards. Therefore, the respondents No.1 and 2 services have been discontinued paying retrenchment benefits. They approached conciliation machinery. It was referred to Labour Court and Industrial Dispute, Visakhapatnam by the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-II, Eluru, on the ground that the action of the management is illegal. The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, by its award dated 12.07.2019 ordered reinstatement of the respondents No.1 and 2 with 50% back wages along with other service benefits. The award was published on 29.10.2019 under G.O.Rt.No.461 dated 25.09.2019.

03. The award is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the factual aspects. The unit of the petitioner at Kakinada was closed followed by the retrenchment. In the absence of any activity, reinstatement with back wages is arbitrary and illegal. The Tribunal did not discuss how the provisions of the Industrial Disputes were not followed by the petitioner. The respondents No.1 and 2 and two more employees were discontinued since there was no work. Even in Vizag unit, except some administrative staff, no technical people are there. The petitioner in his evidence clearly brought this stand by producing profit and loss account statement for the relevant years. There is no evidence that unit is still continuing and undertaking works. Therefore, reinstatement with back wages is illegal. The recourse to section 10 of I.D.Act is not maintainable. Hence, writ is filed to set aside the award passed by the 3^rd respondent.

04. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter-affidavit, contending that they worked continuously from the date of their appointment, till 30.04.2014. The petitioner retrenched them illegally by order dated 28.04.2014. They approached the Conciliation Officer i.e., Joint Commissioner of Labour, Zone-II, Eluru. He referred the matter U/s.10(1)(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, vide I.D.No.65/2015. The Tribunal passed award dated 12.07.2019 holding that the action of the petitioner is illegal and not justified and directed to reinstate the respondents No.1 and 2 into service with 50% back wages from the date of termination, till their reinstatement. The award was published on 29.10.2019 under G.O.Rt.No.461 dated 29.05.2019.

05. The Tribunal basing on the evidence on record, passed the award. No evidence was placed before the Tribunal that there is no activity at Kakinada unit. Therefore, the Tribunal award is justified. The petitioner neither pleaded nor produced any evidence regarding closure of the unit. The writ petition is not maintainable in law, in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Management of Maduranatakam Co-op. Sugar Mills Limited Vs. V.S.Viswanathan , AIR 2005 SC 1954 as the findings of the Tribunal is final on facts. The finding of the Tribunal cannot be interfered unless either perverse, based on no evidence or based on evidence, which is not legally acceptable. There is no evidence before the Labour Court that the petitioner unit was closed. Therefore, the decision of the Labour Court is justified.

06