Retirement and retrenchment.

S. Ramachandra Iyer, O.C.J.-

These Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records relating to W.J. Nos. 17, 18 and 19 of 1959 on the file of the Labour Court, Madras, and for quashing the orders passed thereon on 8th July, 1960, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for certain monetary compensation.

The respondent is a private limited company, which owns and publishes "THE MAIL", one of the premier English daily newspapers of Madras. P. S. Desikachari, C. Theobald and A. Krishnamurthi, the petitioners in the above petitions, were employed by the respondent as the Chief Reporter, Sports Editor, and Reporter respectively for the paper. Each one of them had put in more than 35 years of continuous service in the establishment ; by the year 1956, they had attained respectively 62, 58 and 58 years of age. The relationship between the management and the petitioners during the entire period of service was happy: the management treated the employees with kindness and consideration, and the latter, on their part, responded by doing substantial work to forward the interest of the paper. There was no special conditions of service regulating the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent. Their services could, however, be terminated by notice on either side. To be more specific, the contract of employment did not provide for retirement of the employee on reaching any particular age; nor were there any Standing Orders providing for superannuation of the employees. There is, however, nothing unusual or strange in this as the employer could always discharge the employee by giving the necessary notice.

The working conditions of the journalists formed one of the subjects which the Press Commission had to enquire into and consider. The Commission made its report on 14th July, 1954. Shortly thereafter, the Central Legislature passed Act XLV of 1955, which came into force on 20th December, 1955, regulating the conditions of service of working journalists and other persons employed in newspaper establishments. It also provided a machinery to fix the emoluments of the working journalists. It is not disputed that the petitioners would come within the definition of the term ‘working journalists’ under that enactment.

At about that time, the management of "THE MAIL" appears to have considered the expediency of continuing in service the petitioners. The willingness of the latter to retire was not ascertained, presumably because their consent was not necessary for the termination of their service. The management decided to retire them from 1st June, 1956 on payment of "the usual statutory compensation". Mr. Taylor, the Director, communicated the decision to the three petitioners in due course: it is not disputed that the latter were then told that they would be paid all statutory benefits due to them. Indeed, the letters individually addressed to the three petitioners, by the management on 22nd March, 1956, specifically stated that the former would be paid "retrenchment compensation". Theobald was willing for the termination of his service on these terms. But the other two placed before the management their special difficulties in the event of their immediate discharge, and pleaded for a reconsideration of the decision. The management was however, not agreeable to reconsider their decision to retire them, but was willing to mitigate the rigour of its order by making it effective from 1st October, 1956. It will be useful in this connection to set out verbatim two letters written on behalf of the management to Krishnamurthi, which can be taken as disclosing the circumstances under which he and Desikachari were dischargeed. The first of them is dated 22nd March, 1956, and runs:

"Dear Sir,

Mr. Taylor, Director, mentioned to you on Saturday, 3rd March, 1956, that in view of your long service, viz., 40 years, the Board had decided to retire you from service effective from the 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document