GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. - (1.) THE industrial dispute between the appellant, the Bennett Coleman and Co. Employees' Union, and the respondent, the employer-company, which has given rise to this appeal by special leave was in regard to the retrenchment of seven workmen effected by the respondent. The respondent is a firm which carries on the business of publication of newspapers, periodicals and books. It also does job printing. The head office of the firm is at Bombay, and at Delhi it prints and publishes the Times of India and Navbharat Times; job printing work is also done. The department which undertakes this job work is known as the National Printing Works. It appears that the respondent felt that the National Printing Works which was running at a loss could be saved, if at all, by retrenching surplus workmen, and so, seven workmen were retrenched by it. The appellant - union disputed the validity of this retrenchment and that dispute was referred to the industrial tribunal, Delhi, for adjudication. The tribunal has held that the retrenchment of the seven workmen in question was lawful and justified, and so, it has answered the question referred to it in favour of the respondent. It is against the award pronounced by the tribunal in terms of its finding that the appellant has come to this Court.
(2.) THOUGH the dispute as originally raised by the appellant concerned seven workmen, it has now been reduced to a dispute in regard to one workmen alone; out of the seven workmen retrenched, five were compositors and two machine-men. Five compositors and one machine-man have accepted the retrenchment and no dispute subsists between them and the respondent any longer. It is in regard to one machine-man that the present dispute is confined. The main point which was urged by the appellant before the tribunal was that the retrenchment was unlawful and unjustified, because in retrenching the seven workmen the respondent had not followed the industrial principle of "last come first go." confining ourselves to the question of the one machine-man with whom this appeal is concerned, the appellant's case was that there are some other machine-men who joined the respondent's service later than the retrenched machine-man and that they should have been retrenched and not the said workmen. This contention is raised on the basis that the National Printing Works constitutes a part and a department of main establishment run by the respondent in New Delhi and so, it was argued that since there are other machine-men working at the litho printing machine on which the respondent's two papers are printed, the respondent should have applied the principle of "last come first go" by reference to the whole list of machine-men and should not have confined the application of the said principle only to machine-men in the National Printing Works. This plea naturally raises the question as to whether the National Printing Works is a part of the bigger establishment owned by the respondent. The tribunal has made a finding against the appellant on this question. It has held that the National Printing Works and the main establishment are two independent sections and have been treated as such for a very long time. That is why it has held that the industrial principle of "last come first go" has been observed by the respondent in discharging the workman in question. It is common ground that if the said principle has to be applied by reference to the machine-men employed in the National Printing Works alone no valid objection can be raised against the retrenchment in question.Sri Ramamurthi for the appellant contended that the finding of the tribunal that the National Printing Works is an independent department is wrong in law and he has argued that the said department and the other establishment are housed in the same building, that the terms and conditions of employment of machine-men in the National Printing Works are substantially the same as those prevailing in the rest of the establishment, and his argument, therefore, is that it is erroneous to allow the National Printing Works to be treated as a separate and independent entity. In support of this argument he has referred us to the decision of this Court in Indian Cable Co., Ltd., Calcutta v. Its workmen [(1952) Suppl. 3 S.C.R. 589] as well as to the case of Superintending Engineer, Machkund, and others v. Workmen of Machkund Hydro-electric Project and another [A.I.R. 1960 Orissa 205]. We do not think it would be possible for us to decide this large issue in the present appeal. There is no evidence on the record in regard to the terms and conditions of service prevailing in the National Printing Works and the other part of the establishment, and though it is true that there are some documents (Exs. W. 23 and M.15-A) which would show that compositors from the job printing department were liable to be, and in fact were, transferred to the news department, that itself cannot afford adequate material for dealing with the larger issue which Sri Ramamurthi seeks to raise. That being so, we do not propose to deal with the merits of the finding of the tribunal that the National Printing Works is an independent department unconnected with the rest of the establishment run by the respondent. The said question will have to be tried between the parties, if necessary, in future no more satisfactory material.In our opinion, the award made by the tribunal can be sustained on the narrow ground that the seniority list by reference to which the discharge of the machine-men in question has been sustained by the tribunal was substantially agreed to by the appellant. It appears that the National Printing Works has been running at a loss for some time in the past and the respondent was thinking of closing the said department. That is why on 27 April, 1961 discussion took place between the parties and the appellant was informed by the respondent that thirty employees would be retrenched on payment of compensation as required by law. In pursuance of this discussion, the seniority list was duly prepared and as required by rule 77 of the Industrial Rules the said list was communicated to the union on 9 May, 1961. In this list, the machine-men, working in the National Printing Works alone were shown according to their seniority. The appellant raised some objection in regard to the seniority list of the compositors and they were duly considered and the said list was modified. No objection was raised in regard to the seniority list of the machine-men. Acting on this list, the workmen in question were retrenched on 24 May, 1961, and as we have already indicated, it is the last four workmen who were discharged, and so, there can be no objection on the ground that the principle of "last come first go" has not been followed. That, in our opinion, afford a good ground for sustaining the finding of the tribunal, and it is no the ground alone that we confirm the award by the tribunal. Sri Ramamurthi then attempted to argue that the impugned retrenchment is inconsistent with the agreement entered into between the parties on 2 November, 1960. This agreement shows that the respondent consented to try the experiment of running the job department even though it was incurring loss subject to certain conditions. Those conditions are specified in this agreement. One of these conditions was that as a measures of trial, the job department would be continued for a period of two years and two months ending 21 December, 1962, and during this period, the respondent would not effect any cut in the existing emoluments of the workers, subject to the terms laid down in Sub-cl. (ii) of Cl.3 as mentioned thereafter. There were other conditions to which it is not necessary to refer. The agreement concluded with term that if at the end of the experimental period, "no loss" position is not reached, the workmen would be retrenched consequent to the closure of the job department and he paid their dues in accordance with the provisions of law. Sri Ramamurthi suggests that by this agreement the respondent undertook to run the department for the agreed period without retrenching any workman. We are not impressed by this argument. All that the respondent agreed to do, subject to the conditions specified in the agreement, was not to close the job department for the period and see if losses could be cut down so as to enable the respondent to continue the department still further. The respondent had agreed not to make any cut in the wages as specified in Cl.1(i). There was no agreement that there would be no retrenchment. Therefore, we do not think that the fact that the respondent agreed not to close down the department for the stipulated period can be said to imply a further agreement that during the said period no retrenchment could be effected. That being so, we do not think there is any substance in the argument that the retrenchment in question is contrary to the implied terms of this agreement.The result is, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs.;