B.N.Banerjee, J. - (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. JUDGEMENT_194_AIR(CAL)_1964Html1.htm