HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
P. B. Mukharji, S. A. Masud
HAJEE ISMAIL SAID AND SON (PVT.) LTD - Appellant
Versus
FOURTH INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - Respondent
. Of .
Decided On : June 18, 1965
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - Termination of service - Retrenchment - Standing Orders - Closure.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant company, a private limited company carrying on business in the manufacture of country spirit and rectified and denatured spirit, terminated the services of 313 of its workmen in accordance with the Standing Orders. The workmen raised an industrial dispute, and the Industrial Tribunal awarded compensation to all the workmen. The appellant company challenged the award on the ground that the termination of service was not retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, but a termination under the conditions laid down in the Standing Orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the termination of service in the present case was not retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The court held that the termination of service under the Standing Orders was not necessarily and always a retrenchment, and that in the present case, the termination was justified by the compelling circumstances of the closure of the business due to the refusal of the Government to grant the necessary license and supply the raw materials.
Issues: Whether the termination of service in accordance with the Standing Orders is always and necessarily a retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and if it is not so always, in which cases such termination is retrenchment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definition of 'retrenchment' in Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not an unqualified and unmitigated definition covering all termination of service for any reason whatsoever, but that it contains within itself its own limitations. The court held that such limitations are that such termination must be a termination for a 'reason', and that if the termination is not in the volition, option and free choice of the employer or within the control of his reason, then termination in such force of circumstances is not retrenchment.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of the Industrial Tribunal and the judgment and order of the High Court, and issued a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Award in respect of the 246 workmen represented by the Russa Distillery Workers' Union. The court also dismissed the cross-appeal by the respondent opposite party No. 4 in respect of the 67 workers represented by the Russa Distillery Employees Union.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from the judgment and order of D. N. Sinha, J. discharging the Rule obtained by the appellant company in respect of 246 of its workmen.
( 2 ) THE significant point for determination in this Appeal is whether termination of service in accordance with the Standing Orders is always and necessarily a retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, and if it is not so always, in which cases such termination is retrenchment.
( 3 ) THE petitioner is a private limited company carrying on business in the manufacture of country spirit and rectified and denatured spirit. This business is exercised and can only be exercised in terms of an Excise license issued to the petitioner appellant and under its terms the Government fixed the price of the spirit and sanction from the Commissioner of Excise was necessary in order to exceed such a price. The workmen employed by the petitioner company are opposite party No. 4, and are represented by the Russa Distillery Workmens' Union. There is another Union by the name of the Russa Distillery Employees' Union which represent 67 of the workers.
( 4 ) THE events involved in this dispute relate back to the incidents that happened in 1959. It is the appellant's case that on the 23rd April, 1959, the situation was such that the appellant was compelled to close the Distillery. Then there was an agreement between the appellant and its workmen. A brief account of these facts may be helpful at this stage. The workmen after a strike notice dated the 9th March, 1959, on the issues relating to the retrenchment and change of service conditions struck work from the 9th April, 1959. The Management notified to the workmen on the 23rd April, 1959 of their decision to close the factory for the reasons stated in that notice. The dispute was then taken up in conciliation proceedings. The Management was thereafter informed by the Exercised Directorate that they would be receiving a certain quantity of molasses in a year although that meant a reduction of their previous quantity. The Management thereafter decided to reopen the establishment with about 64 workmen. The workmen not having agreed to accept the offer of the management, the Establishment could not be re-opened. After discussion in conciliation proceedings on the 21st May and 22nd May, 1959, a certain Agreement was reached on or about the 25th May, 1959. The essence of this agreement is that the Establishment shall reopen on the 25th May, 1959, with all workmen on roll on the 8th April, 1959, and this complement will work until the 30th May, 1959 on their normal wages. From the 1st June, 1959, the daily complement of workmen in the establishment would be 100 and the establishment would work on weekly rotation basis and another complement of 100 would be replaced each week. The list was to be drawn up jointly by the management and the Union. It was also agreed that in the working out the programme of work, the workmen who would be out of employment from the 1st June, 1959, should be considered as on lay off and was entitled to the lay off benefits. The attempt, however, to work this agreement did not succeed for reasons beyond the control of the appellant.
( 5 ) THE main reason for the failure of this agreement was that the Excise Department of the Government failed to supply the quantity of molasses and did not renew the license for the manufacture and sale of the country spirit. Without these two, it was natural that this particular business in distillery could not be carried on. The foundation on which the agreement could be worked failed. In fact the appellant's case is that there was no work for these workers. The facts are stated in the appellant petitioner's notice dated the 9th April, 1959.
( 6 ) THIS notice was followed by the notice of termination of service which the appellant petitioner gave to its workmen. The notice of termination is dated the 10th July, 1959 and read
Buckingham and Carnatic Co. Ltd. v. Venkatiah
Management of U.B. Dutt and Co. (Private) Ltd. v. Workmen of U.B. Dutt and Co. (Private) Ltd.
Chartered Bank Bombay v. Chartered Bank Employees Union
Guest, Keen, Williams P. Ltd. v. P.J. Sterling
Mettur Industries Ltd. v. A.R. Varma
Pipraich Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pipraicuh Sugar Mills Mazdoor Union
Banaras Ice Factory Ltd. v. Its Workmen
Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay v. Labour Appellate Tribunal of India
REFERRED TO : Murugan Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal Madras
Workmen of Dewan Tea Estate v. Their Management
Hathising Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Union of India
Devidayal Nanakchand v. State Industrial Court, Nagpur
Nagpur Electric Light and Power Co. Ltd. v. K. Shreepathirao
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.