- (1.)THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks to quash the award of the labour court, dated 15 June 1959, directing the petitioner to reinstate seven workers in service within a week after its publication in the fort St. George Gazette.
(2.)THE petitioner is sub-lessee of not only the leasehold interest in the land and building constituting the cinema theatre but also an assignee of the equipment, including a projector for running cinematograph business. From the original owners of the site and building, the lessor of the petitioner had taken out a lease of these properties. The agreement to transfer the site and building was dated 7 December 1958, which was executed by the lessor in favour of the petitioner, On 27 December 1968, the lessor, who was the previous employer, put up ft notice which ran thus: Take notice that since we have relinquished the business of Pushpa Talkies with effect from 27 December 1958 to one V. Subramaniam of Salem, your services have been terminated with one month's notice front this 27 December 1958. You will Pushpa Talkies vs. Its workmen (through the Secretary, South Indian Cinema Employees'. . . Page 2 of 5 pa Talkies vs. Its workmen (through the Secretary, South Indian Cinema Employees'. . . Page 2 of 5 bate to refrain from attending duty and have to take your salary after the expiry of the notice date. It was alleged that after the notice the workers to whom the notice applied did not turn up for work, though this was controverted by the workers themselves. The fact appears to be that, from that date, the workers did not actually work in the concern of the petitioner. The workers took up the attitude that the transfer of the business actually took place before 27 December 1958, and that on that date they continued to be under the employment of the petitioner, and that, therefore, the notice issued by the previous management on 27 December 1958, was improper and ineffective to terminate their services by retrenchment. The petitioner, on the other hand, would have it that the actual transfer of the business as distinct from the transfer of the site and building thereon, took place only on 27 December 1958 so that by reason of the notice on that date by the previous employee, the workers in question no longer continued under his service so that no question of his liability would arise either under Section 25ff of the Industrial Disputes Act or of his liability to reinstate the workers on any ground. In view of this difference, a reference of this dispute was made to the labour court, the terms of the reference being whether the retrenchment of the workers was justified, and if not, to what relief they were entitled.
(3.)BEFORE the labour court, the previous management filed a counter in which it was asserted that the actual charge of the business was with him, and that the notice to the workers on that date could, therefore, be said to be invalid. The labour court, on the basis of the evidence placed before it, found that even before 27 December 1958, the previous management bad virtually transferred the business to the petitioner, and that therefore, the previous management had no right to issue notices to the workers on that date terminating their services on the ground of retrenchment. It held therefore, that the notices were not valid. Without being content with this finding, the labour court went further to find that neither the previous management nor the petitioner had complied with the provisions of Section 25ff and that the retrenchment of the workers was illegal and not justified. Eventually, therefore, the labour court directed reinstatement of the workers with back wages from the date on which they were retrenched. It is this award that is sought to be quashed by the present petition. Pushpa Talkies vs. Its workmen (through the Secretary, South Indian Cinema Employees'. . . Page 3 of 5 pa Talkies vs. Its workmen (through the Secretary, South Indian Cinema Employees'. . . Page 3 of 5