2007 Supreme(Kar) 133

2007(4) Kar. L.J. 513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
SUBHASH B. ADI, J.
MANAGEMENT OF ADITYA HOROWGICALS LIMITED, DODDABALLAPUR - Appellant
Versus
D.K. NARAYANASWAMY AND OTHERS - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 26592 of 2002
Decided on : 27th February, 2007

Headnote:Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25-G - Retrenchment - Procedure under - Should be followed - Evidence of employer showing such procedure being not followed - Held, it is a clear case of illegal retrenchment. [Subash B. Adi,]: That in compliance of Rule 77 of the Rules, a list is maintained. However, no such list is produced nor evidence is produced for having published such list 7 days before the retrenchment. It has also come in the evidence of the Management that last come first go principle has not been followed mainly on the ground that the entire section has been closed, apart from the findings of the Labour Court, that these workmen are not subjected or specialized only for a particular department. It is clear from the evidence on record, that if the workmen were appointed as general workmen and they were subjected to transfer from one department to another department, then any of the workman is required to be retrenched from the service on any ground, then, the Management is required to comply with the requirement of Section 25-G of the Act, inasmuch as Section 25-G provides procedure for retrenchment where any workman in an industrial establishment is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of the workmen in the establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last person employed in that category, for reasons to be recorded, the employer retrenches the workman. This provision is clear that, in the event if the Management wants to retrench its workmen, it can do so only by following Section 25-G and in view of the evidence of the petitioner- Management, that it has not followed the provisions of Section 25-G and has retrenched the workmen, it is clear case of illegal retrenchment.

       Cases Referred: AIR 1982 SC 1249; AIR 1963 SC 569; AIR 1960 SC 762; 1975 LLJ (1) page 293; AIR 1997 SC 3086; 2006 (2) LLJ 1046; 2005 (III) LLJ page 1009; AIR 2005 SC 2179.

       Industrial Dispute (central) Rules, 1967 - Rule 77 - Retrenchment - Existence of several sections in the establishment - Retremehment of workmen of one section - List of such workmen showing seniority - Required to be maintained - No evidence produced for having maintained such list - Retrenchment illegal as "last come first go" principle is also not followed.

       Cases Referred: AIR 1982 SC 1249; AIR 1963 SC 569; AIR 1960 SC 762; 1975 LLJ (1) page 293; AIR 1997 SC 3086; 2006 (2) LLJ 1046; 2005 (III) LLJ page 1009; AIR 2005 SC 2179.

       Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25 -H- Benefits of retrenchment - Retrenchment found illegal - Held, workmen so retrnched are enstled for consequential benefits. [Subash B. Adi,]: Section 25-H of the Act assumes importance in the matter where the workman is retrenched in compliance with Section 25-G, is required to be re-employed. The fact that there is no seniority list maintained, the fact that the principle last come first go is not followed, the workmen having been retrenched, the retrenchment, in my view, amounts to illegal retrenchment and workmen so retrenched are entitled for consequential benefits of illegal retrenchment. It is not in dispute that all these workmen were appointed by the Management. It is also not in dispute that they have been retrenched without following the procedure or complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. If their retrenchment is illegal, then they are required to be restored to their original position and I find no reasons to differ with the finding of the Labour Court or the award passed by the Labour Court for reinstatement. As such, even on the question of relief, the Labour Court having found that the retrenchment is illegal, the only course that was open to the Labour Court was to reinstate the workmen to the original position and to grant relief of backwages. However, the Labour Court taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, has found that the workmen are not entitled for full backwages and has restricted to 50% backwages. To this extent, there is no reason to interfere with the award.

       Cases Referred: AIR 1982 SC 1249; AIR 1963 SC 569; AIR 1960 SC 762; 1975 LLJ (1) page 293; AIR 1997 SC 3086; 2006 (2) LLJ 1046; 2005 (III) LLJ page 1009; AIR 2005 SC 2179.