The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Industrial Tribunal did not exceed the scope of the reference and considered all applicable statutes, including the Industrial Disputes (Uttar Pradesh) Rules, 1976, while judging the validity of retrenchment.

JUDGMENT :

This is employer’s petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging the award dated 02.03.2020 given by Industrial Tribunal, Haldwani in Adjudication Case No. 04 of 2019. By the said award, retrenchment of 303 workmen, by M/s Bhagwati Products Ltd. was declared to be unjust and violative of Section 25-N of Industrial Disputes Act (Central Act).

2. It is not in dispute that the reference was made by Labour Commissioner, Uttarakhand under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. English translation of the dispute, which was referred for adjudication, is given below:-

“1. Whether the retrenchment of 303 workmen (as per list enclosed) by M/s Bhagwati Products Limited, Plot No. 18, Sector-02, Pantnagar, District Udham Singh Nagar is proper or legal, as the workmen allege that retrenchment/lockdown is without prior notice? If not, then to what relief the workmen are entitled to and with what details”

3. Petitioner has challenged the award on the ground that Section 25-N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) could not have been invoked by the Industrial Tribunal for deciding validity of retrenchment, when reference was made under Section 4-K of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, according to him, Industrial Tribunal has travelled beyond the scope of reference, by recording a finding that retrenchment is in violation of Section 25-N of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act). Thus, the question, which falls for consideration in the present case, is whether, in the facts and circumstances, learned Industrial Tribunal was justified in invoking the provision contained in Section 25-N of the Central Act, when the dispute was referred under the State Act.

4. In the impugned award, averments made by workmen as well as employer in their written statements, have been reproduced in extenso. The employer admitted that approximately 384 persons were employed in the factory in December, 2018, therefore, applicability of Chapter V-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act) cannot be questioned.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that due to significant reduction in the market share of the petitioner due to technological advancement, 303 workmen were retrenched by following the procedure contained in Section 6-N of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 read with U.P. Industrial Dispute Rules, 1957; retrenchment notice was pasted on the notice board on 27.12.2018. He further submits that all legal dues, including one month’s notice pay, retrenchment compensation etc., were offered through cheque to concerned workmen, as per provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and out of 303 workmen, 144 accepted retrenchment by accepting retrenchment compensation.

6. Paragraph no. 9 of the impugned award reveals that representatives of both the parties had submitted that the dispute referred for adjudication can be decided on legal issues only and further had expressed their readiness to address on the legal question involved in the matter. Learned Tribunal had given liberty to the parties to adduce evidence, if needed, at the stage of final hearing.

7. Learned Industrial Tribunal has observed in the award that none of the parties requested for opportunity to adduce evidence and they confined their arguments to legal questions only, therefore, the dispute was decided based on the rival contentions on question of law.

8. Before Industrial Tribunal, the workmen argued that they have been retrenched by applying provisions of State Act; while, as per law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation & another Vs. Jabar Singh & others, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 112, procedure prescribed in Section 25-N of the Central Act should have been applied. Thus, workmen contended that since mandatory procedure contained in Section 25-N of Central Act was not followed, therefore, their retrenchment is bad and they are entitled to reinstatement with all benefi