Retrenchment is not a direct result of the installation of photo composing machines where the work of composing of a newspaper, which was being done by the hand compositors of the appellant, was stopped not because the photo composing machines were introduced, but, because after a long time the newspaper installed its own Desk Top Publishing System.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - RETRENCHMENT - SECTION 25-N OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - NOTICE OF CHANGE UNDER SECTION 9-A OF THE ACT - RATIONALISATION - INTERPRETATION - WORK OF COMPOSING OF NEWSPAPER "YUGDHARM" WITHDRAWN FROM APPELLANT COMPANY - GENUINENESS AND ADEQUACY OF REASONS FOR RETRENCHMENT - APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE SECRETARY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT - ABSORPTION OF RETRENCHED WORKMEN.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a public limited company, purchased the daily newspaper "Tarun Bharat" in 1949 and launched a Hindi daily "Yugdharm" three to four years thereafter. The work of composing of these two newspapers was done by hand compositors engaged by the appellant. In 1963-64, the appellant purchased and installed three Mono Composing Machines and one Lino Composing Machine. The appellant did not effect any retrenchment of employees doing hand composing work because the said work in regard to the daily "Yugdharm" was still done by its hand compositors. In 1980, the appellant installed 4 photo composing machines. The full-fledged work, however, could be extracted from these machines since 1982-83 onwards. The appellant invited applications from all the persons including the hand compositors from the Press Department who were desirous of or were interested in obtaining the necessary training for operating the above photo composing machines but none of these hand compositors responded to the said notice. The appellant then imparted necessary training to 15 to 16 employees who were found suitable and entrusted them with the work of operating these machines. The remaining employees who were operating the old Mono or Lino composing machines were absorbed in different departments/sections in the press of the appellant. The hand compositors continued to do the work of hand composing of "Yugdharm" and a very small quantity of work of hand composing of advertisement of "Tarun Bharat". In 1988, the society "Rashtriya Vichar Sadhana", which was managing "Yugdharm", transferred the business and undertaking of "Yugdharm" to "Yugdharm" Workers Newspaper Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur". The work of printing and hand composing was still being done in the press of the appellant. In June 1989, "Yugdharm" Newspaper Pvt. Ltd., installed its own Desk Top Publishing System for the work of composing. As a result, the management of "Yugdharm" withdrew its work of composing from the appellant company. The appellant made an application to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur, under section 25M of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (the Act) for permitting it to lay off 28 workers doing hand composing work in its establishment. The said application was rejected. The appellant then filed an application under section 25-N of the Act before the Secretary, Department of Industries, Labour, Ministry of Labour for State, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, on 27-5-1991 seeking permission to retrench 16 hand compositors and 3 distributors. The said application was allowed by the State Government by the order dated 24-7-1991 and granted its permission to retrench the 19 workmen concerned subject to the condition that the appellant should comply with the provisions relating to statutory compensation etc. as given in section 25-N of the Act and that in future recruitment it should give preference to these retrenched workers. Feeling aggrieved, two Unions representing the concerned hand compositors, filed writ petitions in the High Court challenging the above order of the State Government granting permission to retrench them. The writ petitions were disposed of by common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of the High Court on 28-8-1991. He held that the retrenchment of the hand compositors in question resorted to by the appellant company was an ultimate consequence of the new technology in composing work adopted by it. According to him, it was a change in Item 10 of Schedule IV of the Act which could not have been effected without giving a notice of change under section 9-A of the Act to the workmen affected thereby. As the appellant company failed to give the notice of change under section 9-A of the Act to the concerned hand compositors, he held that the State Government had committed a patent illegality in not holding that the retrenchment of these workmen was the direct result of the new device adopted by the appellant company. He, therefore, set aside the order of the State Government granting permission to the appellant company to retrench these workmen and thus dismissed its application under section 25-N of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the common judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the appellant Company preferred the instant Letters Patent Appeals.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the retrenchment of the workmen concerned is not a direct out come of the installation of photo composing machines by the appellant in 1980 but withdrawal of the work of composing by "Yugdharm" in June 1989 which work till then from the establishment of "Yugdharma" was being done by the hand-compositors of the appellant. The High Court further held that the Secretary of the State Government has applied his mind to all the relevant factors regarding the question of retrenchment as required by sub-section (3) of section 25-N of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the retrenchment of the workmen concerned is a direct out come of the installation of photo composing machines by the appellant in 1980 or withdrawal of the work of composing by "Yugdharm" in June 1989? 2. Whether the Secretary of the State Government has applied his mind to all the relevant factors regarding the question of retrenchment as required by sub-section (3) of section 25-N of the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The retrenchment of the workmen concerned is not a direct out come of the installation of photo composing machines by the appellant in 1980 but withdrawal of the work of composing by "Yugdharm" in June 1989 which work till then from the establishment of "Yugdharma" was being done by the hand-compositors of the appellant. 2. The Secretary of the State Government has applied his mind to all the relevant factors regarding the question of retrenchment as required by sub-section (3) of section 25-N of the Act.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the Letters Patent Appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal and restored the original order of the Secretary, Labour Department of the State Government, granting permission for retrenchment, subject to the condition that the permission shall be restricted to 12 out of 19 workmen concerned and as regards the remaining 7 workmen, the appellant/Management is directed to absorb them according to their suitability for the jobs available for them.

JUDGMENT - H.W.DHABE, J. :---These two L.P.As. arise out of the common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions preferred by the two trade unions who had on behalf of the employees sought to be retrenched by the appellant challenged in the writ petitions the order passed by the Secretary (Labour), Industries. Energy and Labour Department, dated 24-7-1991 granting permission to Narkeshari Prakashan Limited which runs daily newspaper "Tarun Bharat", to retrench 19 workmen subject to the conditions laid down in the said order dated 24-7-1991.

2. The facts are that the appellant which is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act purchased the daily newspaper "Tarun Bharat" in or about 1949. Three to four years thereafter, it launched Hindi daily by name "Yugdharm". The work of composing of these two newspapers was done at that time by the hand compositors engaged by the appellant. In the year 1963-64, the appellant purchased and installed three Mono Composing Machines. According to the appellant these three machines operated in two shifts and there were about 23 or 24 employees required to operate them. The appellant then installed in 1965 one Lino Composing Machine which was also working in two shifts and required about 4 or 5 operators to operate the same.

3. It is the case of the appellant that the work of operating these machines was highly technical and a skilled one requiring extensive training. Further, according to it the hand compositors engaged by the appellant were not in a position to cope up with such technical work and therefore, the majority of the operators employed on these machines were from outside. However, according to the appellant, even after installation of these machines, the appellant did not effect any retrenchment of employees doing the work of hand composing because the said work in regard to the daily "Yugdharm" was still done by its hand compositors. The hand compositors in the appellant company, therefore, did the work of hand composing of "Yugdharm" and a very small quantity of work of hand composing of advertisement of "Tarun Bharat". Their conditions of service thus remained unaffected by reason of installation of the above machines. The fact that because of installation of the above machines there was no retrenchment of employees doing hand composing work is not in dispute between the parties.

4. It is the case of the appellant that the printing technology was undergoing rapid changes with the result that the above machines installed to do the composing work became obsolete and therefore in order to keep pace with the modern technology and other competing newspapers, the appellant installed 4 photo composing machines in or about 1980. The full fledged work, however, according, to it, could be extracted from these machines since 1982-83 onwards only. It is the case of the appellant that the operation of these highly sophisticated and expensive machines required thorough and extensive training. The appellant, therefore, invited applications from all the persons including the hand compositors from the Press Department who were desirous of or were interested in obtaining the necessary training for operating the above photo composing machines but none of these hand compositors responded to the said notice. Nonetheless, according to the appellant, all the employees who were operating Lino and Mono composing machines and who were interested in getting the training for operating the above photo composing machines were imparted the required training to operate the same. After thus imparting necessary training, 15 to 16 employees who were found suitable were entrusted with the work of operating these machines and the remaining employees who were operating the old Mono or Lino composing machines were absorbed in different departments/sections in the press of the appellant.

5. It is the case of the appellant that even after commissioning of the above photo compo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1992 Supreme(Bom) 473

Cases Referred (2)

Login now and unlock premium legal research