1964 Supreme(Cal) 277

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
H. K. Bose, B. C. Mitra
PARRYs (CALCUTTA) EMPLOYEEs UNION - Appellant
Versus
PARRY AND CO. LTD. - Respondent
A. F. O. O.  90  Of  1964
Decided On : DECEMBER 23, 1964

Headnote:

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 25 (F) (C) - RETRENCHMENT - JUSTIFICATION - REORGANISATION OF BUSINESS - BONA FIDES - JURISDICTION OF INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - WRIT OF CERTIORARI - SCOPE.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent Company, Parry and Co. Ltd., carried on business all over India as Merchants, Importers, Selling Agents and manufacturers having its Head Office in Madras. In Calcutta the principal business of the respondent Company consisted of various agencies for sale of products of diverse well-known companies. The respondent Company also carried on manufacturing activities on a small scale at a small Engineering Workshop at Kidderpore. In 1954 the respondent Company is alleged to have suffered losses due to decline in business and, effected retrenchment of some staff with the permission of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The case of the respondent Company is that the business was affected as a result of import restrictions and other factors. In 1960 and 1961 the Company had to close down three brandies in North India and twelve branches in South India and its establishments in many places became considerably reduced; and in order to reorganise its business, the Company relinquished several agencies in Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, So far as Calcutta is concerned the Company relinquished eleven general sales and pharmaceutical and other engineering agencies between 1st August 1. 960 and 1st August 1961. It is stated by the Company that in pursuance of its policy to develop manufacturing activities as opposed to General Agency business, it reorganised its business operations us a result whereof the agencies in Calcutta and elsewhere had to be relinquished and this policy was adopted for the sake of convenience and for economic utilisation of the Company's finance in the light of the changing pattern of the Company's business. "the eleven agencies which were given up in respect of the Calcutta business were as follows: Date of Ralinguishment Name of Agency 1-8-1960 (H. A. L.) Hindusthan Antibiotics Private Ltd. Bombay . 1-8-1960 Government Oil Factory, Calicut . 1-8-1960 Ramaraju Surgical Cotton Mills Ltd. 1-8-1960 Quink (Chelpark Co. Private Ltd.) 1-4-1961 Coru Products Company (India) Private Ltd. 1-4-1961 (Confectionery) Parrys Confectionery Ltd. 1-5-1961 Confectionery Vox Pastilles Parrys Confectionery Ltd. 1-6-1961 Cobra Altantis (East) Ltd. 1-7-1961 Johnson and Johnson of India Private Ltd. 1-7-1961 Lederle Laboratories (India) Private Ltd. 1-8-1961 Aspro (Nicholas of India Ltd.) It appears that as a result of this reorganisation and relinquishment of the agencies, sixty-six persons engaged in connection with the work of the said agencies relinquished, became surplus to the requirements of the Company, These sixty-six persons consisted of thirty-one office clerks, seven typists, one stenographer, seven godown clerks, four office subordinate staff, one godown subordinate staff, seven godown workers, three drivers and five delivery peons.

Finding of the Court:

The Tribunal has also very fairly and impartially recorded the finding that the Union has failed to make out a case of victimisation but it was of the view that the probability that the Union activities would be weakened by largo scale retrenchment could not be ignored or overlooked. It is moreover difficult for us to come to the conclusion that these findings are not supported by any evidence.

Issues: 1. Whether the retrenchment of the workmen named in the attached list (the said 52 persons) mentioned above is justified? 2. To what relief, if any, are they entitled?

Ratio Decidendi: In exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court cannot function as a Court of Appeal and interfere with or revise findings of fact arrived at by a properly constituted Tribunal upon evidence adduced before it.

Final Decision: This appeal is allowed and the judgment and Order of the learned trial Judge are set aside and the Award of the Tribunal is upheld. . There will be no order as to costs. THE operation of this Order will remain stayed for four weeks from today, as prayed for.