The mandatory conditions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which require notice or one month's pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation, were complied with by the company, and therefore the retrenchment was valid.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is against the judgment and order dated August 26, 1993, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on an application challenging the award passed by the 5th Industrial Tribunal. West Bengal. The issue in the award case before the 5th Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal was whether the management was justified in retrenching the workmen named in the attached list? What relief, if any, were the workmen entitled to? The 5th Industrial Tribunal by the said order held that the order of retrenchment of the 32 concerned workmen was invalid, void, ah intitio and not justified. The Tribunal directed that the concerned workmen would- however, not be entitled to reinstatement as the same would jeopardise the administration of the company, but they would be entitled to backwages on the terms stated in the award, namely :-- (a) The 10 concerned workman under reference who died during the proceeding would be entitled to full back wages including other allowances from the date of retrenchment till the respective dates of their death of the age of superannuation whichever is earlier; (b) Those concerned workmen who are deemed to have retired on attaining the age of superannuation during the continuance of proceeding, would be entitled to full back wages including other allowances till the dates of their superannuation; (c) Those concerned workmen, namely. Phani Mohan Karmakar, Atul Krishna, Kundu, Madhusudan Chatterjee, Nirmalendu Dey Sarkar, Samirendra Dutta, Krishna Pada Sarkar, Sankar Kumar Sen Sharma, Debi Prosad Mitra, R. N. Dey, Parimalendu Ghosh, Bimal Chandra Chatterjee, Prabir Kumar Mukherjee who are gainfully employed in other concerns, would be entitled back wages including allowances from the date of retrenchment till the date of their respective employment in other concern where they are gainfully employed.

( 2 ) THE appellants have challenged the said award by filing a writ petition in the Court of first instance. It was the contention of the appellant before the Trial Court that said 32 employees were working in a particular unit of the appellant company and on the closure of such unit the services of the said 32 workmen who, according to the appellant company, were terminated and the company had paid substantial amount as ex-gratia, payment, to the said 32 employees, whose services were terminated. It was the contention of the appellant before the Court of first instance that if this termination was equated as retrenchment in view of the finding that the said employees were not officers but workmen that the payment of the said amount should be considered as compensation towards retrenchment.

( 3 ) THE respondents sought to justify the award made in their favour inter alia, contending that this is a clear case of retrenchment within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act they were entitled to retrenchment compensation as they were held to be workmen within the meaning of the said Act.

( 4 ) THE learned Trial Judge by the said judgment and order observed that the Writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution does not sit in appeal upon the decision of the statutory authority. The learned trial Judge also observed that the writ Court has to examine the decision making process and if it does not find any error of jurisdiction or any perversity of the order, the Writ Court, would not be inclined to interfere with the order as a matter of course. The learned Judge also observed that a litigant is expected to see the finality of the litigation thereof within the limited scope of interference by the Writ Court and the Writ Court being essentially a Court of equity has to consider the points of grievance of the parties in their proper perspective. The learned Judge made an interim order staying the operation of the award on the condition that 50% of the back wages, as directed