Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
B. N. Banerjee
NATIONAL IRON AND STEEL CO. LTD. - Appellant
Versus
THIRD INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter 28 Of 1963
Decided On : JULY 2, 1963
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 25-F - RETRENCHMENT OF WORKMEN - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - OFFER OF PAYMENT OF WAGES AND COMPENSATION IN NOTICE OF RETRENCHMENT - WHETHER SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner company retrenched 22 workmen, including respondents 3 to 16, on the ground of paucity of work. The retrenchment was challenged by the workmen's union, and the dispute was referred to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Tribunal found that the retrenchment was illegal as the conditions precedent to retrenchment under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, had not been complied with.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the offer of payment of wages and compensation in the notice of retrenchment was not sufficient compliance with the conditions precedent under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The notice called upon the retrenched workmen to receive payment following their retrenchment, which made the offer bad and the retrenchment order incompetent.
Issues: Whether the offer of payment of wages and compensation in the notice of retrenchment was sufficient compliance with the conditions precedent under Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditions in Section 25-F are conditions precedent and that an unconditional offer for payment, preceding retrenchment, may be equivalent payment. However, in the instant case, the notice called upon the retrenched workmen to receive payment following their retrenchment, which made the offer bad and the retrenchment order incompetent.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule with costs, hearing fee assessed at five gold mohurs.
( 1 ) THE Rule is directed against an award, made by the Third Industrial Tribunal, directing re-instatement of certain retrenched workmen.
( 2 ) THE petitioner company runs an iron and steel factory at Belur, District Howrah. In the month of April, 1960, the petitioner company laid off twentyseven workmen, including respondents Nos. 3 to 16, on the alleged ground of paucity of work. On the further allegation that there took place no improvement in work, the petitioner company thereafter proposed to retrench the workmen. Thereupon, the respondent No. 2, Belur Iron and Steel Workmens' Union, raised an industrial dispute over the proposed retrenchment and the dispute was dealt with by a Conciliation Officer. As a result of the conciliation proceedings, there was a settlement arrived at between the parties, whereby it was agreed that the proposed retrenchment be put off and the workmen be compulsorily put on leave for a period of two months. Even after the expiry of two months, the petitioner company found no improvement in work justifying the employment of all the workmen, put on leave as aforesaid, and, therefore, retrenched twenty two workmen, including respondent Nos. 3 to 16. This, it was said, was done after due compliance with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act and after intimation to the Labour Commissioner.
( 3 ) THE retrenchment gave rise to an industrial dispute and the respondent State Government referred the dispute to the Third Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on the following issue: "1. Whether the retrenchment of the workmen named in the attached list is justified? To what relief, if any, are they entitled.
List of Workmen.
1. Shri Ajit Das Turner 2. Shri Paresh Singh --do-- 3. Shri Dinanath Missiv Slotter 4. Shri Saila Mulah --Do-- 5. Shri Balai Pan --do-- 6. Shri Satish Roy --do-- 7. Shri Sachin Sett --do-- 8. Shri Pramode Raojan Guha Miller 9. Shri Ram Sagar --do-- 10. Shri Surya Manna --do-- 11. Shri Chintamony Ghose --do-- 12. Shri Nareadranath Ghose --do-- 13. Shri Bishwanath Prasad --do-- 14. Shri Gajadbar --do-- 15. Shri Dibeyendu Roy --do-- 16. Shri Ranjit Chakravory --do-- 17. Shri Niranjan Banerji --do-- 18. Shri Dhubeonarain Singh --do--
( 4 ) BY an award, published on November 23, 1962, the Industrial Tribunal found that the retrenchment had been illegally made and made an award for their reinstatement. Out of the workmen directed to be retrenched the petitioner company accepted the finding and the award so far as retrenched workmen Ajit Das, Paresh Singh, Saila Mullah and Satis Roy were concerned but could not reconcile itself to the remaining portion of the award. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner company moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for a Writ of Certiorari for the quashing of the award and for a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents 1 and 17 from giving effect thereto.
( 5 ) THE grounds on which the Industrial Tribunal found the retrenchment to be illegal were: (i) The retrenchment was effected by notice to the workmen concerned, sent by post of September 1, 1962, but there was nothing to show that the conditions precedent to the retrenchment had been complied with before retrenching the workmen; (ii) the offer to the workmen to collect one month's wages in lieu of notice and the retrenchment compensation, as embodied in the notice itself, did not cure the defect, inasmuch as the notices dated August 31, 1962, were posted only on September 1, 1962 and did not reach the workmen prior to the date the retrenchment became effective, (iii) there was no proof that the notice at retrenchment, in the prescribed form, was at alt despatched to the appropriate Government Department. This however, the Tribunal held to be a mere irregularity and not a fatal omission.
( 6 ) IT was contended before me by Mr. Noni Coomar Chakravartti, learned Ad
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
